
Class__£i2^. 
Book _1L_ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/boundarybetweenmOOunit 



p 

1st Session. ' ^ ) No. 154. 



48th CoNaRESS, { HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. ( Ex. Doc. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



MESSAGE 

FKOM THE \ 




PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



TRANSMITTING 



A eommunication from the Secretary of State relative to the hoiindaries 
between Mexico and Guatemala. 



May 6, 1884. — Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. 



To the House of Representatives : 

In answer to that part of the resolution of the House of Representa- 
tives of the 17th of January last respecting- the question of boundary 
between the Republics of Mexico and Gautemala, I transmit herewith 
the report of the Secretary of State and its accompanying papers. 

CHESTER A. ARTHUR. 
Executive Mansion, 

Washington, May 6, 1884. 



Department of State, 

Washington, May 6, 1884. 
To the President : 

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the 
House of Representatives of the 17th of January last, requesting the 
President, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to 
communicate to the House " any correspondence with the Governments 
of Mexico and Guatemala in reference to the boundary question be- 
tween said Republics, and any offer ou the part of this Government to 
mediate on the same," has the honor, in response thereto, to submit to 
the President the papers mentioned in the subjoined list. 

Respectfully submitted. 

FRED'K T. FRBLINGHUYSEN. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATKMALA. 



F1^4j 



No. 


1. 


No. 


2 


Ni). 


3 


No. 


4 


No. 


5 


No. 


6 


No. 


7 


No. 


8. 


No. 


9. 


No. 


10. 


No. 


11 



' H.(£>0 j^jgrj, gj^. ACCOMPANYING PAPERS. 

I. — RKPORTS FKOM THE UNITED STATES LEGATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA ABOUT THE 
BOUNDARY QUESTION BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND MEXICO. 

-Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine, No. 179, May 24, 1881. 
--Same to same, No. 183, Mav 27, 1881. 
—Mr. Blaiue to Mr. Logan, No. 151, June 21, 1881. 
—Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine, No. 197, June 28, 1881. 
—Same to same, No. 210, Jnly 19, 1881. 
—Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Logan, No. 202, April 11, 1882. 

—Mr. Titus to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 5, May 12, 1882, with accompaniments. 
—Mr. Hall to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 20, September 29, 1882, with accompani- 
ments. 
— Same to same, No. 27, October 12, 1882, with an accompaniment. 
—Same to same, No. 47, December 20, 1882, with an accompaniment. 
—Mr. Davis to Mr. Hall, No. 36, January 19, 1883. 

II. — GUATEMALA'S REQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES TO INTERFERE IN THE BOUNDARY 

QUESTION WITH MEXICO. 

No. 12.— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine, June 15, 1881. 

No. 13. — Mr. Blaine to Mr. Ubico, June 16, 1881. 

No. 14,— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine, June 19, 1881. 

No. 15. — Same to same, June 22, 1881. 

No. 16.— Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine, July 20, 1881. 

No. 17.— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine, October 19, 1881. 

No. 18.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Ubico, October 31, 1881. 

No. 19.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Montufar, October 31, 1881. 

III. — OFFER OF MEDIATION BY THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO IN THE BOUNDARY 
QUESTION WITH GUATEMALA. 

No. 20.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 138, June 16, 1881. 
No. 21.— Same to same, No. 139, June 16, 1881. 
No. 22.— Same to same, No. 142, June 21, 1881. 
No. 23.— Same to same, No. 143, June 21, 1881. 
No. 24. — Same to same, telegram, June 23, 1881. 

IV. — OBJECTION OF MEXICO TO THE MEDIATION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

No. 25.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, No. 232, July 12, 1881. 
No. 26.— Same to same, No. 240, July 19, 1881. 

No. 27.— Same to same. No. 247, August 5, 1881, with accompaniments. 
No. 28.— Same to same, No. 253, August 11. 1881. 
No, 29.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 164, August 24, 1881. 
No. 30.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine, No. 259, August 25, 1881, • 
iio. 31. — Same to same. No. 273, September 22, 1881, with an accompaniment. 
No. 32. — Same to same. No. 287, October 6, 1881. 

No. 33.— Same to same, No. 289, October 20, 1881, with an accompaniment. 
No. 34. — Same to same. No. 297, November 2, 1881, with an accompaniment. 
No. 35. — Same to same, No. 304, November 9, 1881. 
3S[o. 36.— Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 198, November 28, 1881. 

Ko, 37.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No, 335, January 10, 1882, with accom- 
paniments. 
No. 38.— Same to same, No. 354, February 6, 1882 
No. 39. — Same to same. No. 357, February 13, 1882. 

No. 40.— Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan, No. 232, February 16, 1882. 
No. 41. — Mr. Morgan to Mr. Freliugliuysen, No. 372, March 8, 1882. 
No. 42. — Same to same. No. 374, March 28, 1882, with accompaniments. 
No. 43.— Mr. Frelinghuysei^o Mr. Morgan, No. 252, April 3, 1882. 
No. 44.— Same to same, No.#)4, April 11, 1882. 



ai^o ]V1 
dA54, 



D. cif D. 
APR 8 1916 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 6 

V. — FUKTHEU APPEALS FROM GUATEMALA FOR THE MEDIATIOX OF THE UNITED 
STATES DURING MR. MONTUFAR'S SPECIAL MISSION TO WASHINGTON. 

No. 45. — Mr. Montnfar to Mr. Blaine, November 2, 1881. 
No. 46. — Same to same, November 7, 1881. 
; No. 47.— Same to same, November 21, 1881. 
No. 48.— Mr. Ubico to Mr. Freliughuyseu, February .3, 1882. 
No. 49. — Same to same, February 4, 188-^. 

VI. — ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION ON THIS QUESTION. 

No. 50. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelin<;huyseu, March 9, 1882, with an accompaniment. 

No. 51. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Romero, March 24, 1882. 

No. 52. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 29, 1882, with an accompaniment. 

No. 53. — Same to same. May 6, 1882, with accompaniments. 

No. 54. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Romero, May 13, 1882. 

No. 55. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen^ June 23, 1882, with an accompaniment. 

VII. — NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND MEXICO CARRIED ON AT WASHING- 
TON FOR THE SETTLEMKNT OF THE BOUNDARY QUESTION. 

No. 56. — Mr. Montnfar to Mr. Frelinghuysen, April 14, 1882. 
No. 57. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montnfar, June 5, 1882. 
No. 58. — Mr. Montnfar to Mr.' Frelinghuysen, June 9, 1882. 
No. 59. — Same to same, Juno 15, 1882. 

No. 60. — Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montnfar, June 27, 1882. 
No. 61.— Mr. Romero to Mr. Freliughnysen, July 20, 1^82. 
No. 62. — Mr. Montufar to Mr. Fielinghuyseu, July 21, 1882. 
No. 63.— Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, July 22, 1H82. 
No. 64.— Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montufar, July 24, 1882. 

VIII. — FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY QUESTION THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES 

OF THE UNITED STATES. 

No, 65. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, August 14, 1882. 

No. 66.— Mr. Davis to Mr. Romero, August 23, 18 -2. 

No. 67.— Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, September 27, 1882, with an accompani- 
ment. 

No. 68.— Mr. Davis to Mr. Eomero, October 2, 18-<2. 

No. 69.— Mr. Crnz to Mr. Frelinghuysen, October 14, 1882. 

No. 70. — Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen, January 16, 1883, with an accompaniment. 

No. 71. — Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 614, May 9,1883, with an accompani- 
ment. 

No. 72.— Mr. Davis to Mr. Morgan, No. 406, May 28, 1883. 

No. 73.— Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen, No. 689, September 20, 1883, with an ac- 
companiment. 




CORRESPONDKNCE. 



l.—RErOllIS FROM THE UNITED STATES LEGATION IN CENTRAL 

AMERICA. 

No. 1. 

Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Extract. — Confidential. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 179.] Legation of the United States 

IN C'ENTRAL AMERICA, 

Guatemala City, May 24, 1881. (Received Juiie 17.) 

Sir: In previous dispatches I have had occasion to mention the un- 
satisfactory relations between Guatemala and Mexico, arising from 
their unsettled boundary line. 

I have now to report that these relations are growing still less satis- 
factory, and that an open rupture between the two countries is not an 
improbable result of the uear future. 

The state of Chiapas in Mexico, as well as Guatemala, belonged to 
the old captain-generalcy up to the period of the termination of the lat- 
ter, when the people of the former state elected to attach themselves 
to Mexico, under the short reign of Iturbide, whom the Gnatemaltecos 
now charge with having forced the state from them. A certain portion 
of Socouusco, a province of Chiai)as, has become the modern bone of 
contention between the two countries, not so much because of the value 
of the territory perhaps, as because of an important river, with a fair 
harbor on the Pacific, which traverses it. 

Two or three expensive commissions have been appointed to survey 
and report upon a line to divide the two countries, whose work up to 
this time has not amounted to anything. In the mean time local dis- 
turbances, consisting of raids over the border, have occurred at inter- 
vals, until the feeling has become quite embittered. 

♦ * * * * * * 

In confirmation of the disposition of Mexico to make a rupture with 
Guatemala, is the fact I learned from a reliable person last evening that 
Mexico had lately sent 1,000 well-armed men into Socouusco, and that 
2,000 more are expected soou to arrive there. 

I give you these statements for what they are worth. I believe that 
Mexico has every disposition to come to an open rupture with Guate- 
mala on the boundary question, and that she may do so. Barrios is in- 
tensely hated in Mexico, and he returns the feeling with compound 
interest. Though Barrios does not realize it, yet his gov^ernment in one 
sense is a very weak one. * * * His old opponents * * * are 
held down with an iron hand, made up, so to speak, of muskets and 
brass bands. By themselves they can do nothing ; but if Mexico, with 
a few thousand men, were to call away the Guatemala troops from the 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 5 

capital to defend the bortlers, twenty-fou r hours would not elapse be- 
fore the clericals would be massed into an aggressive army ; and being 
in the majority, Barrios would soon be crushed. 

* * * The conquest of Central America, however, would be a dif- 
ferent thing. Were Mexico jjrosperous, and with ability to maintain an 
army and prosecute a war, Montufar's idea would not be an improbable 
one, nor would the mere conquest be a thing of very difficult accom- 
plishment; but the Mexicans must certainly know that no republican 
form of government could hold together territory so separated by phys- 
ical barriers as that comprising the countries herein spoken of. Noth- 
ing but the strong arm of an absolute monarchy, supported by ample 
resources of money, ships and men, could tie them into a single gov- 
ernment. When railroads and telegraphs are built, so that quick com- 
munication can be had from ^Mexico to Oosta Kica, such a project may 
be entertained. At present it is impracticable, and operating upon a 
smaller scale, the difficulty mentioned constitutes the chief obstacle 
against a federal union of the Central American states, as heretofore 
stated to the Department in my dispatches. But a single agency — the 
protectorate of a i)owerful country — can make such a union possible in 
Central America. 

The situation, however, is sufficiently interesting to call for this re- 
port to you. I shall promptly inform you of any additional matter of 
interest. 

I have, «&c,, 

C. A. LOGAK 



No. 2. 

Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Extract. — Publisliecl heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 183.] Legation of the United States 

IN Central America, 
Guatemala City., May 27, 1881. (Received June 17.) 

Sir : My dispatch No. 179 informs you of matters relating to Guate- 
mala in their connection with the adjacent Republic of Mexico. I have 
now to inform you that President Barrios returned yesterday from his 
visit to San Marcos, near the border. To-day I had a few minutes' 
interview with him, during which he informed me that he could not 
leave here until the 15th of June. His manner convinced me that he 
has already abandoned the idea of leaving, although, as other persons 
were present, I could get no opportunity to talk privately with him. 

Later in the day, however, I talked further with Montufar about 
these affairs, when he told me plainly that every day they seemed n)ore 
threatening. Information of the fact communicated to you in my No. 
179, that regular troops were being sent to Soconusco by the Mexican 
Government, has just reached the Guatemala Government, aud prep- 
arations are now being made to dispatch troops from this capital to 
the border. * * * 

What Mexico may really be meditating you are probably better ad- 
vised of, through our minister, Mr. Morgan, than myself. It is without 
doubt simply a question of ability with her, not one of disposition or 
desire. It seems altogether certain that the border raids, often re- 
sulting in loss of life, which have been frequent of late, must precij^i- 



b BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 

tate a collision between the two Governments, if Some basis of agree- 
ment be not soon reached. ♦ * • 

My policy has been, and will be, an evasive one, until instructions from 
Washington may be received. Montufar, who is altogether the best in- 
formed man upon our political system in Central America, tries to argue 
away the probable objections to be interposed by our Government 
against any unwarranted interference in the affairs of our neighbors, 
and especially the acquisition of territory, and rather regretfully, as it 
seemed to me, informed me that with the Democratic ])arty in power 
the acquisition of Soconusco would be but a question of two days. All 
this amounts to nothing, however, except that when hope of assist- 
ance from tbe United States is abandoned Guatemala will undoubt- 
edly make this proposition to one of the b^uropean powers. Great Brit- 
ain, France and Germany are striving for commercial supremacy in 
Central America, and there are some possibilities in the case of a char- 
acter not favorable to our own interests. 

Hence, until I hear from you, my i)olicy will be not to give the Bar- 
rios Government any ]>()sitive encouragement of favorable action by the 
United States, and \t't not i)eremptorily to ciush every hope in that 
direction lest it drive ihem into another quarter. 

Though the jtresmt threatening aspect of these affairs may again pass 
away without open hostilities between the two countries, yet 1 consider 
the situation sutiiciently grave to recommend it to your careful consider- 
ation. 

1 have, &c., C. A. LOGAN. 



No. 3. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Logan. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relati6nn.] 

No. 151.] ' Department of State, 

^yash^ngton^ June 21, 1881. 

Sir: Your Nos. 179 and 183, of the 24th and 27th ultimo respectively, 
have just been received, and have commanded my earnest attention. 
The posture of affairs between Guatemala and Mexico, therein shown, 
had already received urgent consideration, on the representations of 
the Guatemalan minister, Senor Ubico, and an instruction to Mr. Mor- 
gan, at Mexico, had embodied the views of this Government thereon, 
for formal communication to the Mexican Government. The fuller 
details of the situation now received from you have led me to instruct 
Mr. Morgan still further, in a more explicit, but to a certain extent con- 
fidential sense. 

The correspondence* in full is herewith transmitted to you for your 
confidential perusal. The distinctness with which the President's policy 
in the premises is set forth will, I think, make it unnecessary just now 
to give you the special instructions as to your conduct which you ask 
for at the close of your No. 183. I may say, however, that the Presi- 
dent deems it no less incumbent upon Guatemala than upon Mexico to 
endeavor to so shape the course of the dispute as to avoid open hostili- 
ties and conduce to an honorable settlement in the interest of all par- 
ties. You will, of course, do all you consistently can in this sense. 
I am, «&c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 

* For correspondrnce inclosed, see documents ,Nos. 12, 13, 20, and 22. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 7 

No. 4. 
31r. Logan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Extract. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations ] 

No. 197.] Legation of the United States 

IN Central America, 
Guatemala City, June 28, 188 L. (Received July 20.) 

Sir: My dispatch No. 179, under date of May 24, and my No. 183, 
under date of May 27 ultimo, treat of the relations between Guatemala 
and Mexico ; while my No. 195 informs you of a recent note, received 
by the former from the latter Government, of a very threatening char- 
acter. 

Mr. Montufar, the minister of foreign relations, showed me the whole 
correspondence to day ; and, having an opportunity to catch the steamer 
carrying my mail sent by the dispatch-bearer, I hasten to advise you 
of the posture of affairs. 

The present difficulty relates to the same class of troubles detailed 
to you in my Nos. 179 and 183, viz, the questions of limits and raids 
over the border. It seems that in December last, a band of Mexicans 
appeared upon ground which has alwH.ys been under the jurisdiction of 
Guatemala — ground occupied by Carrera, the former President of Gua- 
temala — when Barrios and Grenados began their revolution against his. 
Government, and upon which one or more battles were fought. Thia 
band carried oft' four Guatemaltecos as prisoners, among them an al- 
calde of the Government. The Jefe Politico of San "Marcos, with 100- 
men, went to a place called Tonintand for the purpose of a reconnais- 
sance, but nothing further happening, they went back to San Marcos.. 
Tonintana is not in Soconusco, but considerably this side of it, and was; 
not even claimed by Santa Ana when he took the latter from Guatemala. 
No claim to this portion of territory has ever been made by Mexico 
heretofore. 

This occurrence has become the basis of a fresh correspondence upon 
the old subject between the Mexican minister at this capital and the 
Guatemala Government; the former claiming that Mexican territory 
had been invaded by Guatemala troops, and at a later period, demand- 
ing satisfaction through instruction of his Government. Guatemala 
then addressed Mexico directly, endeavoring to show that no offense 
had been committed, that Mexican territory had not been entered upon, 
&c. The Mexican Government replied that Guatemala was endeavor- 
ing to meet the questions at issue by a policy of delay ; that the form- 
ation of a treaty which both Governments had agreed to, in amend- 
ment of the treaty of 1877, was being intentionally postponed by the 
Guatemala minister in Mexico, Seiior Herrera; that the territory iu 
question belonged to Mexico ; that her dignity had been violated ; and 
that satisfaction— which is understood to mean the punishment of the 
leaders of the force, Margarito Barrios and Manuel Rocas, a salute to 
the flag, &c. — was demanded, failing in which, the inauguration of hos- 
tilities is very plainly intimated by the note. 

The Guatemala Government is greatly alarmed, of course, feeling its 
utter inability to cope with a power like Mexico. A pacific reply has 
been tendered, and the result of events is awaited. 

Guatemala claims that Mexico is pushing her line further every year, 
and she is confident that it is the settled purpose of Mexico to slice ter- 



8 BOl NDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

ritory from Central America, and peiliaps to absorb one or all of the 
states. She has i)roposed arbitration to Mexico upon the boundary 
question a number of times, but is alwaj's met with the reply that the 
dispute must be settled by themselves. 

This is th ' Guatemala side of the stor3^ If Mexico really have ul- 
terior designs looking- to the acquisition of territory, it seems important 
that the United States should be in i)osition to consider whether or not 
her own interests are to be a fleeted thereby. The Guatemala Govern- 
ment, in determining to cede Soconusco, or her right to it at least, to a 
foreign power, hopes to put a stop in that way to the aggressions of her 
l)Owerful neighbor. The idea is not a bad one. I am confident that, 
as yet, no communication upon the subject with the representative of 
any other power has taken place. I have a belief, however, that should 
the United States decline any interest in these affairs, a proposition 
will be made in some other quarter. I shall watch the matter as closely 

as possible. 

******* 

I have, &c., 

C. A. LOGAN. 



No. 5. 

Mr. Logan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 210.] Legation of the United States 

IN Central America, 
Guatemala City, July 19, 1881. (Received August 16.) 

Sir: Referring to your dispatch No. 151, under date of June 21 
ultimo, which incloses copies of instructions to Minister Morgan in re- 
lation to the matters at issue between Mexico and Guatemala, I have 
to report that I have conversed with President Barrios in the spirit of 
your instructions to me, and tind him to be in full sympathy with the 
ideas advanced by you in the whole matter. Nothing new has been 
developed in the affair, as sufficient time has not elapsed to hear from 
the Mexican Government in reply to Mr. Montufar's note spoken of in 
my No. 190. 

As to the full merits of the dispute, it is, of course, difficult to forma 
j udgment. 1 1 is hardly probable that Guatemala is wholly free of blame, 
it being a rare case that, in any dis[)ute, one party is entirely right and 
the other wholly wrong. As Guatemala, however, is a very small nation 
compared with Mexico, she is in no position to be aggressive: and the 
probabilities of ulterior purposes by Mexico, as related in my previous 
dispatches, are, from a priori reasoning, very strong. 

I shall keep you posted in relation to the march of events, as observed 
from my own standpoint. 
I have, &c., 

C. A. LOGAN. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 9 

No. 6. 

Mr. FreUnghuysen to Mr. Logan. 

"So. 202.] Department of State, 

Washington^ April 11, 1882. 
Sir: I transmit herewith for your information the inclosed copy of a 
note* which I have received from the Mexican minister at this capital, 
of the 9th ultimo, respecting the boundary dispute between the Repub- 
lics of Mexico and Guatemala, also a copy* of my reply thereto. 

I am unable to furnish you with a copy of the printed pami^hlet men- 
tioned in the minister's note, one copy of the same only having been 
received here. 

I am, &c., 

FEED'K T. FEELINGHUYSEN. 



No. 7. . 

Mr. Titus to Mr. FreUnghuysen. 
[Extract.— Publislied heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 5.] Legation of the United States 

IN Central America, 
Guatemala City, May 12, 1882. (Eeceived June 3.) 

Sir : Your dispatches Nos. 202 and 203 to Mr. Logan, the latter dated 
April 13, have been received at this legation. 

Eeforring to the dispute between Guatemala and Mexico on the sub- 
ject of boundaries, which is the subject of your No. 202, I have the 
honor to inclose certain documents which may give you some infor- 
mation of the state of affairs here. No. 1 is a translation of a note 
from the Mexican minister here to the Guatemalan minister of foreign 
relations, and No. 2 is tbe answer of the latter. These translations 
were very hastily made, but I think they will be found to be substan- 
tially correct. * * * 

A few days after this correspondence, President Barrios sent a mes- 
sage to the assembly, asking for full powers to arrange the boundary 
question with Mexico as he thought best. His request was granted in 
a decree of which the following is a translation : 

Only article. The President of the Republic, General J. Riifiuo Barrios, is authorized 
in an especial and ample manner, to arrange definitely, and in the manner which he 
may judge most beneficial t) the true interests of ths country, the question of frontiers 
pending with the United Mexican States. 

* * * * * * * 

I have, &c., 

FEANK H. TITUS. 



For inclosures, see documents Nos. 50 and 51. 



10 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

[Inclosnre 1 in No. 5.] 
Mr. Loaeza to Mr. Crus. 

Mexican Legation in the Republic ov Central America, 

Guatemala, April 10, 1882. 

Mr. Minlsteu : I have jnst received two copies of the report presented by yonr ex- 
cellency to the legJNlatnre last month; which document I have read attentively, 
giving special attention to the portion referring to the relations between Guatemala 
and Mexico. Speaking of the question of boundaries, your excellency says that 
"it 18 bfliered with sufficient reason that before the termination of the year the naid question 
may he completely and saii-sfactorily arranged, it beiny impossible for the Government of Guate- 
mala to have any otlier aspiration than that of maintaining its rights, and that the territory 
legitimately belonging to the Republic may not he dismembered, for tvhose integrity it has to 
u-aich according to the fundamental latv." Your excellency also expresses your opinion 
that all the charges made against the Government of Guatemala in the report which 
the secretary of state and of the department of foreign relations of Mexico remit- 
ted to the Congress of the Union of my country, the 10th of last September, '^are abso- 
lutely destitute of justice." That the Government of which your excellency forms part 
is pleaded that Mexico recognizes the judicial fact that the Uriarte-Vallarta conven- 
tion has legally expired; "and that the President of the Republic does not remember 
having proposed that a new convention be made with the intention of reviving the 
former on*'s." Finally, yourexcellenc^V, penetrating into the slippery region of snppo- 
.sitions, affirms that "it is hidden from no one, that if it were sufficient that the federal 
Government of Mexico should declare, upon its oivn authority, that to it belonged any part 
ivhatever of the territory of Guatemala, the day that it should be pleased to declare that the 
whole extent of the Republic belonged to it, your excellency's Government would have to acknotvl- 
edge that resolution, and to recognize the legitimacy of the title which it would create, or else 
to give an offense which would necessitate a reparation." 

I wish that your excellency's hope that during the present year the question of boun- 
daries may be terminated in a satisfactory manner may as soon as possible be an 
accomplished fact, because the desire of my Government in regard to the affair is 
that the dividing line between the two Republics be lixed, perfectly determined, in 
order that there may be no room for doubts, and that the vexatious difficulties which 
are making themselves felt may be avoided. 

As your excellency's report to which I refer contains asseverations which affect the 
good name of my country, and it may be necessary that they be removed, I remit to 
my Government a copy of the said document; but this does not prevent me from ful- 
filling the duty of expressing in the present note my dissent from the facts and appre- 
ciations given by your excellency, in order that at no time consequences may be de- 
duced from my silence. I permit myself to rectify only the most important errors. 

Although it cannot be consideri d as a serious hypothesis that it could occur to Mex- 
ico to declare of its own authority that all the Republic of Guatemala belonged to it, 
taking into consideration the elevated character and illustriousness of the function- 
ary who formulates it, I am obliged to inform him that there is no fact authorizing 
a supposition of sucli a nature. 

Mexico, Mr. Minister, prides herself on nothing so much as on her never deviating 
Irom rectitude. My country does not need nor wish for foreign territories : she possesses 
sufficient teriitory for a ])opulation ten times greater than that she has, and if your 
excellency will please to read the declarations that, competently authorized, are made 
by the editor of the Diario Oficial of the Government of the United Mexican States, 
in No. r)9 of this periodical, dated the 10th of last month (of which I take the liberty 
of inclosing a copy), you will be convinced of the truth stated. 

It is certain that the Government of Mexico lecognizes that the effects of the con- 
vention of December 7, 1877, and those of its prorogation of May 3, 1879, legally ceased 
on account of the termination of the first period stipulated in the last, without the 
commission of experts having finished its labors in the first section of the frontier 
line, and as the nK>8t excellent President of this Republic does not remember, as your 
excellency says, having proposed that a new convention be made with the intention 
of reviving the former ones, I am able to clear up that fact. 

In a note dated June 25, 1881, I had the honor to inform, among other things, the 
department under your very worthy charge, as follows : '' An incident which concerns 
the minister of foreign affairs of my country, in the note which causes this answer, i* 
not referred to by your excellency in your very esteemed note which I have the honor 
to answer, and it is the fact that the undersigned, by order of his Government, had 
the honor to insinuate to the most excellent President of this Republic the conveni- 
ence of celebrating a new convention, which should revive that of December 7, 1877, 
and that, having received snch insinuation favorably, the First Magistrate himself 
dictated his agreement, that it might be transmitted to the minister of Guatemala in 
Mexico, in order that the treaty might be celebrated ; and that Senor Herrera had not 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 11 

informed the department of foreign relations of Mexico that he was anthorized to that 
eflFect." And the 29th of tlie same month, Dr. Lorenzo Montnfar, in his character of 
secretary of foreign relations, which he was then, had the kinduess to answer me, 
among other things, as follows: "Instrnctions were sent to Senor Herrera that tjn- 
medialely he address himself to the secretary (department) of state of the Mexican 
Republic, tvith the end of entering into negotiations over tite new convention referred to in 
yonr excellency's esteemed note, which I answer to-day. " 

In consequence, when the secretary of foreign relations of Mexico stated in there- 
port of last September that the most excellent President of this Republic had ac- 
cepted the proposition which the Mexican Government made him, through me, to 
revive the said convention, he expressed a truth entirely iudisputablf. 

Before closing, will your excellency permit me to express my surprise to see expressed, 
iu the document to which I refer, that the Government of Guatemala is pleased that 
Mexico recognizes the juridical truth that the Uriarle- Vallarta convention has legallg expired, 
because this manifestation of pleasure contrasts with that of the desire which your 
excellency says the Government has to come to a prompt and complete arrangement 
of the question of boundaries, when the scientitic investigations stipulated iu ohe said 
convention must have been exceedingly useful, furnishing the data necessary for its 
greater exactness. 

Although at the risk, Mr. Minister, of abusing your excellency's kindness, I permit 
myself to ask you to be pleased to insert this dispatch in the Guatemalteco, providing 
there should be no objections. 
Renewing, &c., 

F. LOAEZA. 



[Inclosure 2 in No. 5.] 

Mr. Cruz to Mr. Loaeza. 

Guatemala, April 11, 1882, 
Mr. Minister : I have attentively studied the esteemed communication which your 
excellency wa-4 pleased to address me tinder date of yesterday, with the object of ex- 
pressing your dissent to certain statements and observations coutaiued in the last 
report made to the legislative assembly, and of rectifying the principal errors which, 
in your excellency's judgment, are contained in the portion referring to the relations 
between Guatemala and Mexico, iu the said document, which for my part I also 
took care should reach your excellency's Goverumeut. I might from this moment 
abstain entirely from entering into discussion coucerning the statements and observa- 
tions contained in the said report ; and so doing, would do no more than imitate the 
conduct which, in a recent and analogous occasion, the secretary of state of the Re- 
public of Mexico saw tit to observe, when our minister addressed him, expressing the 
astonishment caused him by certain words used by the President in giving an account 
to the chambers, ou the 16th of September last, of the state of the relations between 
Guatemala and Mexico. The answer which that elevated functionary gave him was, 
that without establishing a promiscuous precedent, the documents issued by the 
e!secutive, in conformity to a constitutional requirement, to inform, not foreign conn- 
tries, but the rep-eseutatives of the nation, of its political state, although they might 
be given the greatest publicity for the information of the latter, could not be taken 
as a theme of discussion with foreign ministers, because they are acts of interior polity, 
although they may be found to contain references to exterior affairs. Without piej- 
ndice oi the right to make use of this example, nevertheless, I do not make use of it 
now, through deference to your excellency, and because I do not wish to deprive mj'- 
self of the pleasure of giving you an answer, rectifying iu my turn the erroi-s into 
which it appears to me you have fallen. The report presented to the assembly does 
not say, nor could it say in any part, that it is believed that Mexico is going to de- 
clare, of her own authority, that all the Republic of Guatemala belongs to her, nor 
does it eay in any part that there is a presumption that such a thing wmII happen, or 
that there are facts which authorize that i)resum])tiou or suspicion. The report only 
says, if your excellancy will permit me to recall it to yon, " that referring to the reclaim 
for the invasion of Tor{intana, the representative of Mexico stated to this department that his 
Government denied the satisfaction asked, because it had declared that that territory was part 
of the Mexican soil and had given him orders to so communicate il." 

It says " that on our part it was answered that Mexico was not competent authority to 

make a declaration of that nature, because the party himself interested in a question cannot 

he competent to decide it, and because nations cannot make themselves by their own authority, 

and by the title of their sole declaration, owners of a territory." 

It says " that in spite of this the reclaim of the Government of Guatemala teas not at- 



12 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

tended to,'' and it says finally, to demonstrate ronjijlily to wbat point the consequences 
might come, if one nation had to abide by the declarations made by the other in dis- 
puted malters, that " H it hidden from no one, ihaf if it were sufficient that the federal 
Government of Mexico .should declare upon its own authority that to it helonged any part 
whatever of the territory of Guatemala, the day that it should be pleased to declare that 
the whole extent of the licjxublic belonged to it, my Goveninwnt would have to acknouledge 
that resolution, and to recognize the legitimacy of the title which it rvould aeate." I have 
not penetrated then, Mr. Minister, into the slippery region of supposition, because 
I have not said nor believed that that would happi n, as I have not been al>le to 
believe nor say that Guatemala would ever agree to a resolution to this effect. 
The only thing I have wished to do, and have done, is to make manifest how inad- 
missible and absurd it would be to recognize in one of the contending parties the 
right to itself determine the question by m* ans of the declarations it should see 
tit to make, imposing them upon the other as obligatory. For this jturpose I have 
made use of a style of argument, vtry well known, which is that of pointing out the 
extremes to which the logical ajiplicatiou of a principle would lead, in order that its 
falsity might be recognized by all who could see the impossibility of accepting its 
conseqnences. Your excellency knows perfectly that certain inflexible principles of 
justice are neither nmre or less in small things than in great. If a nation once be- 
lieves itself to have the right to decide for itself that a span of territory which it dis- 
putes with its neighbor belongs to it, with the same right it conld decide afterwards 
that it owned an immense territory which might be the matter in dispute. If in a 
question between two individuals for a few cents one of them conld constitute him- 
self judge, there would be no reason why he should not constitute himself judge in 
the same numner when the (juestion might be for many millions of dollars. But as 
it frequently hapjiens that, when treating of the relatively insignificant, all the im- 
portance of fixing an unsustainable principle is not clearly seen, it becomes necessary 
to apply that same principle to a greater extent and to present all that would happen 
in that case, that there may be no doubt that the principle shonld be repulsed, al- 
though in the very insignificant and small. They ar:-, therefore, as I conceive, two 
things very different, to suppose, that is to say Ixdieve or presume, that a certain thing 
is going to happen, and to only feign thehypothesis that it might happen, in order to 
calculate the conseqnences of a principle. I agree perfectly with yonr excellency 
that it cannot be believed or seriously presumed that it could occur to Mexico of her 
own authority to declare that all the Republic of Guatemala belongs to her, but ex- 
actly the circumstance that that deed gives force to the argument i)resented to the 
assembly, choosing the most unrealizable hypothesis, that is to say, demonstrating 
the inexactitude of a principle by means of the absurd consequences that would have 
to be derived from the application of it. Referring to the remarks which your ex- 
cellency is pleased to make respecting the fact that the President of this Republic does 
not remember having proposed that a new convention be made with the object of re- 
viving those of December 7, 1877, and March 3, 1»79, 1 must inlormyon|thatthisatiirma- 
tion contained in the report, in virtue of data furnistied me by the President, is iu nowise 
•opposed to what my predecess)r said to you, on the 2yth of June of the last year, about 
sending instructions to the minister of Guatemala with the object of entering into nego- 
tiations concerning the new convention to which your excellency refers, for continuing 
the study of the fron t iers. It has not been said that a new convention is not desired or has 
not been authorized, because, as the report itself says, even without it no difficulty 
lias been raised to prevent the Mexican engineers from continuing their labors in tl^p 
territory of Guatemala ; and fv.rthei-more, although it were unnecessary, there was no 
objection whatever to a convention limited exclusively to that, unless it shonld offer 
to reproduce some of the inadmissil)le provisions contained iu the first. It was said, 
then, that there would be no objection to making a new convention, which should 
have the same object of continuing the study of the frontier, but not exactly a new 
convention in terms leaving subsisteut the same ones of the first, whica, as is men- 
tioned in the report, encountered opposition in the council of state, and even among 
some of the members of the Guatemala cabinet, who were not inclined to ratify it, 
and it was only approved by the President of the Republic acceding to the request 
of the representative of Mexico, who assured him that that convention had no other 
object than that of a simple reconnaissance. 1 believe I am able to remove the 
surprise which your excellency has experienced at the contrast which you have 
judged to exist between the manifestation that the Government of Guatemala is 
pleased that Mexico recognizes the juridical fact that the Uriarte-Vallarta convention 
has legally expired, and the expression of the desire, whicli the Government asserts 
itself to have, of coming to a prompt and complete arrangement of the question of 
boundaries. I have not been able to find the difference of meaning between the two 
declarations, which yonr excellency supposes. The (iovernment of Guatemala is 
pleased that Mexico recognizes the expiration of the Uriarte-Vallarta convention, 
because this having expired according to its judgment, as it declared to the assembly, 
it is natural to bo pleased that the Government of Mexico, with which it was cele- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. I'd 

brated, shares in the same opinion,- so that the two are agreed on that point. It is 
pleased that this expiration is recognized, becanse if the convention has no other 
object than the study or reconnaissance of the frontiers, it is entirt^ly unnecessary, 
seeing that this can be done by means of simple notes, and that it is being done even 
without them, and because, if it have any other object aside from this, as was pre- 
sumed from the terms in which it Avas expressed by the individuals of the council, 
and those of the cabinet who opposed its ratification, that peril is avoided, without 
prejudice to the making, if it were believed indispensable, a convention actually 
limited to its proper object. Therefore, the complacency that that convention, as it 
was conceived, has expired, and the sincere desire which animates my Government 
that a prompt and complete settlement of the question of boundaries be reached, are 
perfectly reconcilable. If, in order to reaeb it, there are any scientific studies which 
it may be indispensable or useful t<> make, nothing opposes their being made, if it 
were agretal to make them, and this were convenient, but without the terms .and 
agreements of the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty being reproduced in the convention, but 
that it be made in terms which offer no diiiScnlty, and be limited to providing that 
the studies and reconnaissances required be made. Under the condition of frankness 
which presides over my relations with your excellency, and of the publicity which 
my Government wishes all acts which interest the country to have, I have no objection 
to complying with your excellency's dt sire, that the dispatch which I answer be in- 
serted in the official periodical, to which I promise to send, in the future, reclamations 
and other mattern, which, from their nature and importance, may oppormnely be 
brought to the ki owledge of the j)ublic. 
Reiterating, &c., 

FERNANDO CRUZ. 



No. 8. 

Mr. Sail to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 
LPublished heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 20.J Legation of the United States 

IN Central America, 
Guatemala, September 29, 1882. (Received October 23.) 

Sir: For several moDths past tbe Government of Gnatemala has been 
receiving information of projected invasions of its territory by expedi- 
tions of armed forces, having for their object the enticing or compelling 
the inhabitants of the frontier, who are mostly Indians, info subscrib- 
ing or adhering to public acts of annexation to the bordering states of 
Mexico. It is said that those expeditious have been preparing in Cam- 
peche, Yucatan, Tabasco, and Chiapas. The first of these invasions 
has taken place during the present month in the department of Peten; 
all the information in regard to it, thus far received, is contained in the 
accompanying copies of dispatches and letters to the minister of war of 
Guatemala, and which have been received during the past week. For 
convenient reference I inclose a tracing from an authentic map, show- 
ing what is believed to be the correct boundary lines between Mexico 
and Guatemala, and the location of the towns said to have been invaded, 
as well as those which are mentioned in. the inclosures. 

The first information comes from the alcalde of an Indian town named 
Silvituk. As well as can be made out, from a letter dictated by a person 
who can neither read nor write, it appears that the place was invaded, 
and that the inhabitants were compelled to go to the village of Teuchac 
and there declare their adhesion to Campeche. He charges, also, that 
deception was practiced upon them by a priest named Bersumssi, "who 
told them that the Republic of Guatemala was taken." This priest is a 
native of Campeche, and is well known to the Guatemalan Government. 

The several communications embraced in the inclosures are numbered 
from 1 to 5. Nos. 2 and 3 are translations of dispatches from the military 



14 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

(.'ommandaiit oi Peteu to the minister of war: tbey report the fitting out 
of an expedition in Tabasco, with the knowledge and consent of the 
governor, for the invasion of that department; that one commercial 
firm has given therefor the snni of $5,000, and another has contributed 
00 Winchester rities; that the expedition would be sent b,v steamboat 
from Tabiisco to a place called Tonosique, on the Uniaciuta River, six 
days from his headquarters. He reports also the invasion of the towns 
of San Antonio and Coucepcion. The remaining letters and telegrams 
merely corroborate the general news of the invasion. This affair has 
given the Government of Guatemala a vast deal of trouble and anxiety, 
besides the expenses which it can ill afford to incur, of sending 500 
troops from Coban to the frontier. I have time only by this mail to 
<;ommuuicate the facts, and to say that the Government is reluctant 
to believe that the Government of Mexico has any knowledge of these 
hostile movements. At the earnest solicitation of the President of Gua.. 
temala, 1 cabled to you on the 26th the following : 

President Orantes has information of invasion of Gnateinalan districts Coucepcion 
and San Antonio by Mexican troops, compelling iuliubitants to declare for annexation 
to Campeche. Pnsident hopes invasion not authorized by Mexico. Five hundred 
troops sent to invaded districts. I apprehend hostilities may ensue unless Mexicans 
retire. 

No suggestion of any action in the premises on your part has been 
made; it was desired only that the Government of the United States 
should be advised of these movements. 
I have, &c., 

• HENRY C. HALL. 



[iBclosure 1 in Ko. 20. — Translation of cominunicatioua received by the Government of Guatemala in 
relation to the invasion of the department of Peten by Mexican armed forces.] 

Governor Tuz to the prefect and military commandant of the department of Peten. 

San Juan Silvituk, September 2, 1882. 

Sir: I send this for your information, having received no reply to a dispatch I sent 
making known to you that forces were coming from Caujpeche to take possession of 
these places, which was carried out. A commission having been sent, they made 
us go down to Tanche (Tenchac) to subscribe to an act of adhesion of tliese towus to 
Campeche. Finding onrsidvcs without resources for resist.uice we had to yield, but 
wo oiler not to take up arms against that department. This happened through the 
decejitious of the curate Bersunisa, who told us that tlie Republic of Guatemala had 
been taken and that we could not resist a state like Campeclie. Hearing this, we were 
afraid, and we told them to continue; that we could xiot, inasmuch as wo had taken 
an oatli (to Guatemala probal)ly), but afterwards we learned tliat you had sent circu- 
lar orders, and these papers were taken in Tanche (Tenchac) and we had no knowl- 
edge of the orders which you sent us. Besides this, orders have been given to collect 
provisions for tlie troops that are going to Coucepcion, or for your headquarters, I am 
not sure which. 

This is all I have to make known to the respectable headquarters. 
For the Governor, Jose M» Tuz, 

SALVADOR PERERA. 



[Inclosnre 2 in No. 20. — Translation.] 
Military commandaut, department of I'etin, to minister of war. 

Pktkn, La LiukutaI), Septtmber 4, 1HH2. 

Dkau Sir and Frikxd: I write to communicate to you the n*'\vs given me by a 

merchant who has just arrived from Tabasco. He says tiiat in the cai>ital of that 

state, with the knowledge and permission of the govcruor, a party of bandits is being 

formed to come and rob the department ; that the house of Bulues & Company has 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 15 

given them $5,000, and the house of Valenznela, GO Winchesters; that sixty persons 
were ready who were expecting to complete the nuraher to one hundred, to go out ; 
they will come to Tenocique in a steamer of the house of Bulues; that place is not 
more than six days from here. 

Many of these rogues have been woodcutters in this department ; have failed and 
wish to retrieve their fortunes by robbing and pillaging. The person who has given 
me this news is very respectable, and from the names of the individuals he mentioned, 
and whom I know, I believe it, because they are bandits capable of anything that 
is bad, and one of their pranks is to ruin the house of Jumet & Sastre, to which the 
Bulues are in hostility. 

I will do everything possible not to be surprised, and will defend myself to the last. 
I have no other arms than 25 Remingtons, second class. I have therefore asked for 
25 of first class, and I again ask you most earnestly to send them to me immediately 
with corresponding ammunition. With fifty men well armed I will teach these ban- 
dits a lesson. 

I remain, &c., 

IGNACIO G. SALAS. 



[Inclosnre 3 in No. 20. — Translation.] 

Military commandant, department of Ptten, to the minister of war. 

Peten, La LiiJERTAD, September 13, 1882. 
SiK : I have the honor to annex a dispatch from the alcalde and governor of the 
town of Silvituk (see No. 1), in which he communicates to me that the towns of the 
•district of San Antonio have been invaded by forces from Campeche, who drew up 
acts in those towns annexing them to Campeche. Besides this, I have news that in 
the town of Concepcion, near the boundary of Campeche (state of), and 112 leagues 
from here, there are two hundred troops of Campeche that are preparing to march on 
these headquarters. « * * 
I am, &c., 

IGNACIO G. SALAS. 



[Inclosure 4 in Ko. 20. — Translation.! 

Senor Cruz to minister of war. 

CoBAN, September 21, 1882. 
Sir: I have bad news from Peten, given me by a person who has just arrived from 
there. There are two hundred men from Campeche in the town of Concepcion, pre- 
paring to march upon the capital of Peten. 

I expect you to send me orders, and two competent officers for the emergency I deem 
expedient. 

I am, &c., 

LUIS M. CRUZ. 



f Inclosure 5 in No. 20. — Translation j 

[Telegram.] 

COBAN, September- 21, 1882. 

To the Minister of War : 

At this moment I have received a courier from the prefect of Peten, recommending 
the following telegram to be sent to you : 

"On the 1.5th instant one of the spies sent to the frontier of Campeche relurned, 
stating that forces from that state to the number of 200 men have invaded the depait- 
jtneut and are marching upon this capital." 

I await your orders. 

LUIS MOLINA. 



IG BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 9. 

Mr. Hall to Mr. FreUnghuysen. 

[Extract.] 

No. 27.] Legation of the United Stai'ES, 

Guatemala, October 12, 1882. (Received November 4.) 
Sir : With reference to my telegram of the 26th, and dispatch No. 20, 
of the 29th ultimo, relating to the reported invasion of Guatemala ter- 
ritory by Mexican forces, * * * to-day the following telegram has 
been sent: 

Telegram of tlie 26th ultimo of uo immediate importauce, Mexico haviog telegraiihed 
orders to Tabasco aud Campeche. 

The immediate importance of my telegram of 2Gth ultimo reporting 
the invasion has ceased, a treaty of limits liaving been signed in Mex- 
ico on the 27tl» ultimo, and orders having been communicated by the 
Mexican (lovernment 10 the authorities of Tabasco and Campeche to 
put a stoj) to further invasions of Guatemalan territory. This infor- 
mation is published in El Guatemalteco of the 7th instant, of which I 
transmit an extract and translation. 
I have, &G., 

HENEY C. HALL. 



[luclosure 1 in 27. — Translation from El Guatemalteco.] 
MKXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

In the begiuniug of September last, the authorities of Peteu advised the Govern- 
ment that in the state of Tabasco some forces were being organized with the inten- 
tion of invading that department ; subsequently, about the middle of the same month, 
they further reported that the organized forces of Campeche were invading the fron- 
tier posts, obliging the defenseless inhabitants of San Antonio aud other remote 
places to hign acts of annexation to the Mexican Republic. 

Without giving undue importance to the gravity of the news received as to the in- 
vasion of our territory by Mexican troops, at the very moment when a definite treaty 
was being concluded with Mexico, in virtue of the bases signed in New York the 12th 
of August, the Government of this Republic limited its action to the adoption of such 
measures of safety as the case demanded, until with better data than the reports of 
persons coming from those distant plapes it might be able to judge of its importance 
and gravity, and then to adopt measures tending to sustain the honor and the in- 
tegrity of the country. 

While awaiting further advices (difficult to obtain on account of the great distance 
to the borders of Peten), which the Government proposes to make public, a cable dis- 
patch has bteu received from Mr. Herrera, the minister of this Republic in Mexico, 
announcing that the treaty defining the boundaries has been signed, and that the au- 
thorities of Tabasco and Campeche were promptly instructed to put a stop to all 
further disorder aud to invasions of the territory of Peten, the late advices from there 
having, as a measure of precaution, been communicated to our minister. 

The dispatch from Mr. Herrera is as follows : 

"Mexico, Oclobvr 5, 1882. (Received in Guatemala, 10.40 a. m.) 
" General J. M. Orantes : 

" To-day, on the inauguration of the great enterprise, the cable, I have the honor to 
salute you and yonr illustrious cabinet; it is most satisfactory to me, on this first occa- 
sion, to advise you that on the 27th ultimo a delinite treaty with this Republic was 
signed and boundaries fixed from the Pacific to the Atlantic. I will send it by the mail 
of the 12th. 

" The minister of the interior sent a telegraphic order to the governors of Tabasco 
and Campeche to stop promptly all disorders and the invasion of Peten, and to respect 
the state of affairs. 

" MANUEL HERRERA, Jr." 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 17 

It is therefore satisfactory to tlie Government to advise the Guatemalan people of the 
final termination of a question which, for many years, has caused the country grievances 
and disorders, and even while in the coarse of settlement has served as a pretext to 
the revolutionists to promote on the frontiers of Peteu the disturbances already an- 
nounced, which at this date will have completely disappeared through the measures 
adopted by both Governments. We congratulate once more the people of Guatemala, 
and their illustrious chief. General Barrios, to whose patriotic ettbrts is due tlie hon- 
orable and necessary termination of that question which was a perpetual menace to 
our liberty and tranquillity. 



No. 10. 
Mr. Hall to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Extract.] 

No. 47.] Legation of the Unted States, 

Guatemala, December 20, 1882. (Received January 10, 1883.) 

Sir : Mr. Batres, miuister of foreign affairs at Guatemala, has sent 
me copies of the documents relating to the tinal settlement of the ques- 
tion of boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico, consisting of the 
" preliminary bases," for a treaty of limits, signed in New York by Presi- 
dent Barrios and Miuister Romero on the 12th August, and the final 
treaty which was signed in Mexico on the 27th Sejjtember ultimo. In 
his accompanying note of the 11th instant, the minister informs me that 
these documents are for transmission to the Department in compliance 
with the promise made to you by Mr. Fernando Oruz (the associate of 
General Barrios during his late visit to the United States) in his note 
of the 14th of October ultimo. Translations of these jjapers are also 
inclosed. 

The minister has supplied me also with a cojjy and translation to Eng- 
lish of President Barrios's message to the national legislative assembly 
of Guatemala, submitting the treaty to the approval of that body. The 
translation is a copy of one that has been sent to the consul of Guate- 
mala in New York for publication in the United States, It may, there- 
fore, have reached you, and in a more convenient form than the accom- 
panying voluminous manuscript. 

In connection with Article III of the treaty, I inclose for reference a 
tracing of a map showing the former boundaries, said to have been 
claimed by Guatemala, and the present limits, as established by the 
treaty of September 27, 1882. A number of maps by different authors, 
puri)orting to show the former boundary, have been published during 
the past thirty or forty years, and there are no two which agree. The 
one from which the tracing is made is believed to be nearly correct, and 
the ines designating the new boundary have been drawn by Mr. Irun- 
garay, the consulting engineer who was associated with the Guatemalan 
miuister in Mexico in negotiating the treaty. According to this trac- 
ing it appears that Guatemala, in addition to the voluntary surrender 
of al) claims to Chiapas and its department of Soconusco, loses terri- 
tory equal in extent to the half of that state. 

By refereuce to my dispatches Nos. 20 and 27, of the 29th September 
and the 12th of October ultimo, and to the tracing accomiianying the 
former, it will be seen that the territory Guatemala loses embraces the 

districts then reported to have been invaded by the Mexican forces. 

****** m 

H. Ex. 154—2 



18 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

While the territory in question is of no special value or interest to 
Guatemala, the existence of well-defined boundaries, as established by 
this treaty, will no doubt save her in the future from further encroach- 
ments of her more powerful neighbor. The phraseology of the treaty 
appears to be borrowed in part from the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

General Barrios's message will, I am persuaded, be found of interest. 
I take from it the following extract, wherein he refers to the kind at- 
tentions he received in the. United States, and by which he has bBen, I 
learn, profoundly impressed : 

Before reporting to you the conditions of the conclnded negotiations respecting the 
boundaries, I must declare publicly, upon this solemn occasion, that I received con- 
tinually from the Government and people of the United States delicate proofs of es- 
teem and consideration, the remembrance of which I preserve with affectionate grati- 
tude, corresponding with my sympathies and respect for that generous and glorious 
nation. 

He recites the complications connected with the settlement of the 
boundary dispute with Mexico, arising from the discussions carried on 
at the same time from different standpoints by the respective repre- 
sentatives of Guatemala in Washington and Mexico, the minister in 
Washington having represented that he had reached an agreement with 
the minister of Mexico in the United States to submit the whole ques- 
tion to the arbitration of the United States, while the Guatemalan 
minister in Mexico had reported that the Mexican Government would 
accept the project of a treaty presented by the minister, which included 
indemnification to Guatemala for the renouncement of all claims to 
Chiapas and Soconusco. There proved to be no foundation for either 
report. On the contrary he found, to his surprise, that the representa- 
tive of Mexico in Washington was not authorized by his Government 
to enter into any definite settlement of the dispute ; that Mexico had 
not intimated any wish to submit it to the arbitration of the United 
States, and that this arbitration or mediation could be obtained only 
upon the joint application of both parties. Although he does not refer 
again in the message to the subject of indemnification for the renounce- 
ment of all claims to Chiapas and Soconusco, the result shows that 
Mexico could not have entertained seriously such a condition. 

President Barrios congratulates himself that in renouncing claims to 
the disputed territory he has relieved Guatemala of a menacing and bar- 
ren question 5 he has learned that her rights to Chiapas and Soconusco 
are not sustainable, and for the following reasons : That Chiapas de- 
clared its separation from Spain and its annexation to Mexico before 
Guatemala had made any similar declaration of independence; that on 
the 29th of September, 1821, the authorities and people of Chiapas, by 
a public act, declared their wish to separate from Guatemala and to join 
Mexico ; that with that object they sent a commissioner to express their 
resolution to the Mexican Government; that in 1824 the question was 
submitted to a popular vote of Chiapas, and the result was a large major- 
ity in favor of remaining with Mexico — 90,829 for Mexico and 00,400 for 
Guatemala; that all the constitutions of Mexico since 1824 have in- 
cluded Chiapas as one of its departments or states; that Chiapas has 
jjarticipated in all the vicissitudes of Mexico from that time to the 
present, and has never by any act of the people or authorities expressed 
a wish to unite with Guatemala. 

President Barrios concludes his message, requesting the legislative 
assembly to deliberate upon the treaty with perfect freedom and inde- 
pendence, without partiality or personal considerations for himself, as 
men who will have to render account for their acts to their country and 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 19 

posterity. There is little doubt, however, but that the treaty will be 
approved by the legislative body, in accordance with the President's 
wishes, and, beyond a doubt, the wishes of a majority of the people of 
the country who have ever taken any interest in the question. 
I have, &c., 

HENEY C. HALL. 



[Inclosure 1 in 47. — Translation. I 

Senor Bdtres to Mr. Hall. 

Department of Foreign Relations, 

Guatemala, Decemier 11, 1882. 
Mr. Minister : Under date of the 14th of October of the current year the minister, 
Dr. Fernando Cruz, addressed a note to the honorable Secretary of State of the United 
States of America, in which he informed him, among other things, that wht'u the 
President, General Barrios, returned to Guatemala, and when the treaty of boundaries 
with Mexico should have been received, the department of relations, which is under 
my charge, would have the honor to send to his excellency the Secretary of State of 
the great Republic which your excellency worthily represents, a copy of it and of the 
preliminary bases agreed upon in New York. To-day it gives me pleasure to fulfill 
that promise by sending to your excellency authenticated copies of the said docu- 
ments, that you may be pleased to transmit them to the Secretary of State of the 
American Union, together with the messages which I have the honor to inclose. The 
treaty has already been submitted to the deliberation of the national legislative as- 
sembly, and of what it may determine I shall also take care to advise your excellency's 
respectable Government, which has been pleased to take such a kind interest in the 
question of boundaries which we have had with the neighboring Republic of Mexico. 
I have, &c., 

ANTONIO BATRES. 



E^O. 11. 

Mr. Davis to Mr. Hall. 

No. 36.] Department of State, 

Washington, January 19, 1883. 
Sir : I am in receipt of your dispatch No. 47, of the 20th ultimo, 
touching the satisfactory adjustment of the boundary differences be- 
tween the Eepublics of Guatemala and Mexico. I have to remark, with 
pleasure, that this at one time threatening question seems to have 
reached a happy conclusion. The Department has received copies of 
the printed English version of President Barrios's message to the na- 
tional assembly upon the subject to which you refer. 
I have, &c., 

JOHN DAVIS, 
Acting Secretary. 



20 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



U.— GUATEMALA'S BEQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES TO INTERFERE IN 
THE BOUNDARY QUESTION WITH MEXICO. 

No. 12. 

Mr. XJhlco to Mr. Blaine. 

[Traiislatiou— Published heretofore in Foi-eigu Relatious.] 

Legation of the Eepublic of Guatemala, 

Washington^ June 15, 1881. (Received June 15.) 

Sill : As soon as the Central American Kepublics had shaken oflt" the 
sway of Spain, Mexico, constitnted then as an Empire by Itnrbide, 
began to show its tendency to an increase of territory towards the south 
by encroaching- on the boundaries of the said Republics. With that ob- 
ject the armies of the Mexican Empire passed through the whole of 
Guatemala, and were only stopped by the patriots of Salvador, who 
defeated them at a i)lace which, in remembrance of such an event, bears 
to this day the name of " Mejicanos." Guatemala lost, nevertheless, 
the two important provinces of Soconusco and Chiapas. 

Many years later the Central American territory was once more in- 
vaded by 400 men of the regular Mexican federal army, who were luck- 
ily driven from it. However, the slow and partial annexation of terri- 
tory has not ceased one single day, showing well that if the form of 
government in Mexico has changed from the Empire to the Republic, 
the tendency to enlarge the territory and to overstep the boundaries 
towards the south has remained the same. 

The Government of Guatemala, desirous of settling this affair in a 
manner in accordance with the international law of nations and with 
the established practice of civilized countries, has employed all possible 
means within its reach to obtain this favorable result, and unhappily with- 
out the least success up to the present day : far from it. Neither have 
the claims of our diplomatic agents been attended to, nor have the par- 
tial annexations of territory ceased, nor even the vexations from the 
Mexican authorities. An instance of these was the arbitrary- imprison- 
ment by said authorities of the Guatemalan agents sent, in accordance 
with the Mexican Government, to make a preliminary study which was 
to serve as a basis for the settlement of a definite boundary line be- 
tween the two countries ; also the imprisonment of agents of Guatemala 
who were making the census of the poi)ulation of that country, and that 
of many local authorities of political and local jurisdiction, instead of 
which Mexican authorities have been substituted. 

All peaceful means of conciliation ai)pearing to be exhausted, my 
Government sees no resource left but to appeal to that of the United 
States as the natural protector of the integrity of the Central American 
territory. 

The Government of Guatemala, from which I have special instructions 
on the subject, and the i)eople of Central America will see with pro- 
found gratitude any demonstration that the Government of the United 
States may find tit to make to that of the Mexican Republic that may 
induce this latter to respect the integrity of the Central American ter- 
ritory, and also lead to the cessation of an abnormal state of affairs- 
which, unfortunately, has lasted too long already. 
Accept, &c., 

A. UBICO, 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 21 

No. 13. 
Mr. Blaine to Mr. TJMco. 
[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, June 16, 1881. 

Sir : I have had the pleasure to give attentive perusal to the note of 
yesterday's date, which you were pleased to address me concerning the 
question of boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico, in respect 
whereof your Government makes an appeal to that of the United States 
" as the natural protector of Central American integrity." 

Few subjects can more cordially commend themselves to the good 
judgment and sympathy of the President than the preservation of peace 
and friendship between the Republics of Spanish America, in their com- 
mon interest no less than in our own. 

The President does not understand that your presentation of the causes 
and course of the long i)endiug disagreement with Mexico as to the re- 
spective rights or territorial limits of the two countries, in the districts 
of Soconusco and Chiapas, calls upon him for any expression of opinion 
as to the extent of the just jurisdiction of either. It is not the policy 
or the desire of this Government to constitute itself the arbiter of the 
destinies in whole or in part of its sister Republics. It is its single aim 
to be the impartial friend of each and all, and to be always ready to 
tender frank and earnest counsel touching anything which may menace 
the peace and prosperity of its neighbors, and in this it conceives that 
it responds to its simple and natural duty as the founder and principal 
upholder of the true jirinciples of liberty and a republican form of gov- 
ernment upon the American continent. The Government of the United 
States is above all anxious to do any and every thing which will tend 
to strengthen the indispensable and natural union of the Republics of 
the continent, in the face of the tendencies which operate from without 
to influence the internal affairs of Spanish America. It is especially 
anxious, in the pursuance of this broad policy, to see the Central Ameri- 
can Republics more securely joined than they have been of late years in 
protection of their common interests. It feels that anything that may 
lessen the good will and harmony so much to be desired between the 
Republics of the American Isthmus, must in the end disastrously atfect 
their mutual well-being. The responsibility for the maintenance of this 
common attitude of united strength is, in the President's conception, 
shared by all, and rests no less upon the strong states than upon the 
weak. 

Entertaining these views, and without, however, in any way prejudg- 
ing the contention between Guatemala and Mexico, the President has 
deemed it his duty to instruct the diplomatic representative of the 
United States in Mexico to set before that Government his conviction 
of the danger to republican principles which must ensue should inter- 
national boundaries be disresiDected, or force resorted to in support of 
rights not made clear by recourse to the peaceful procedure recognized 
by the modern code of intercourse. 

In taking this course, the President is sure that Mexico, no less than 
Guatemala, will see therein the most signal proof of the impartial good 
will we bear toward both. 
Accept, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



22 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 14. 

Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine. 

[Translation. — Publislied heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Legation op Guatemala, 
Neiv YorJcj June 19, 1881. (Received June 21.) 

Sir : I have bad the honor to receive your excellency's polite note of 
the 16th instant, in reply to that of this legation of the day previous 
iu relation to the dismemberment of the territory of Central America by 
the Mexican authorities. 

Your excellency is pleased to inform me that my appeal to the United 
States Government for protection has not been disregarded, and that 
you have tendered your mediation and good offices in order to put an 
end to the untoward state of things on the Mexican frontier, for which 
purpose you have sent suitable instructions to your representative in 
the Republic of Mexico.'' 

The Government of Guatemala, to which I have communicated the 
decision adopted by your excellency, and to which I have sent a state- 
ment of the frank and friendly policy of your excellency's Government, 
as well as of your excellency's views and those of His Excellency the 
President, which are in every way calculated to inure to the benefit of 
the Spanish Americans in general and to that of Central America in 
particular, will duly appreciate the noble and generous course adopted 
by the United States Government, to which the inhabitants of the Gua- 
tamalan frontiers will be indebted for their future peace and tranquil- 
lity. 

By way of justifying its constant dismemberment of the territory 
of Central America, the Government of Mexico will perhaps allege un- 
founded rights, in which case that of Guatamala will submit the case 
on its part to the United States Government for arbitration, because it 
considers that it is the mission of that Government to settle the dis- 
putes that unfortunately arise on this continent. 



With assurances, &c. 



A. UBICO. 



No. 15. 

Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine. 

[Translation. — Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, 47th Cong., 1st Sess.] 

Legation of Guatemala, 
Washington, June 22, 1881. (Received June 24.) 
Sir : Again feeling grateful for the friendly and opportune mediation 
of your excellency's Government in the matter concerning which I had 
the honor to confer with your excellency this morning, I have felt un- 
willing to leave Washington without expressing my gratitude to your 
excellencj-, in the name of my Government, together with the hope that 
you will kindly continue to give the same attention as heretofore to this 
matter, which is of so high importance to Central America. 
With assurances, &c., 

A. UBICO. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 23 

No. 16. 

Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. 

[Translation. — Published Heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Department of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, 

Guatemala, July 20, 1881. (Received October 20.) ' 

Mr. Minister : I have been informed of the benevolent sentiments 
which actuate the Government of the United States on the subject of 
Central American unity, and especially of your desire to prevent a war 
between Guatemala and Mexico, growing out of the boundary question. 
K Such a war seems to be daily more imminent, and there have been 
times when it was believed to be actually breaking out. . 

The expressions to which your excellency has been pleased to give 
utterance in behalf of peace have been regarded by the Government of 
Guatemala as a fresh evidence of the sincere friendship of the United 
States Government, while the instructions transmitted to the American 
minister in Mexico have been considered as an additional proof of the 
warm interest felt by the United States in behalf of everything that 
tends to promote justice, good order, and progress in the New World. 

The constitutional President of Guatemala instructs me to thank the 
enlightened Government of the United States in his name, and to ex- 
press the sentiments of gratitude which he entertains, together with 
his desire to co-operate in the realization, in America, of the views rela- 
tive to the welfare of the whole continent, which do so much honor to 
the American Union. 

In obeying these instructions, which I am most happy to do, I have, 
&c., 

LORENZO MONTUFAR. 



No. 17. 

Mr. Ubico to Mr. Blaine. 

[Translation, published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Legation of el Salvador, 
New York, October 19, 1881. (Received October 20.) 
Sir : During the month of September last I received instructions 
from my Government to place in your excellency's hands the paper which 
I now have the honor to inclose.* 

The painful circumstances in which your excellency was placed by 
reason of the late great national calamity have prevented me from trans- 
mitting this document to your excellency sooner. 
I reiterate, &c., 

A. UBICO. 

* For inclosure see note from Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine, July 20, 1881. No. 16. 



24 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 18. 
Mr. Blaine to Mr. Ubico. 

[Published, heretofore iu Foreign Relatious.] 

Department of State, 
Washington, Oetober 31, 1881. 
Sir : I liave the lionor to acknowledge tlie receipt of yonr note of the 
19tli instant, accompanied by one addressed to me by his excellency 
SeQor Dr. Lorenzo jMontufar, minister of foreij;n aiiairs of Guatenjala, of 
July 20 last, in which he conveys the thanks of his Government for the 
proffered mediation of the United States in the boundary dispute be- 
tween his Government and the Mexican Republic. 

I beg to confidently assure you of the very grateful ap]>reciation with 
which the sentiments of the Guatemalan Government have been received, 
and of the desire of the President and Government of the United States 
that a full and impartial measure of justice should be accorded in each 
case, which, in the interest of the peace, prosperity, and happiness of 
the family of nations of this continent is so much to be desired, and 
to the accomplishment of which the good offices of this Government are 
ever ready when desired. 
I avail, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



No. 19. 
il/r. Blaine to Mr. 3Iontnfar. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Department of State, 
Washington, October 31, 1881. 
Sir : I have had the honor to receive, through the courtesy of the 
minister of Guatemala at this capital, your note of the 20th of July last, 
wherein you tender the thanks of your Government for the proposed 
mediation of the United States Government of the settlement of the 
impending dispute between the Kepublics of Guatemala and Mexico, 
touching their boundary. 

The very cordial manner in which the action of the United States has. 
been received and acknowledged is most gratify iug to the President and 
to this Government, whose object was solely in the interest of an im- 
partial and amicable adjustment of the disputed points. Actuated by 
such desire, and cherishing the brightest hopes for the peaceful settle- 
ment of all dithculties between the rei)resentatives of republican gov- 
ernments upon this continent, and for their hapi)iness and prosperity, 
the Government of the United States cheerfully lends its influence toward 
the attainment of so laudable an end, whenever called upon. 
I avail, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATtMALA. 25 



UI.-OFFEE OF MEDIATION BY THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO IX THE 
BOUNDARY QUESTION BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 20. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, 
[Publislied heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 138.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 16, 1881. 

Sir : In luy iustructious of the 1st ii)staut and to-day I have so clear- 
ly auaplilied the spirit of i^ood will wliich auiinates this Government 
toward that of Mexico, that I am sure no room for donbt can remain as 
to the sincerity of our friendship. Believing that this friendship, and 
the frankness which has always distinguished the policy of this country 
toward its neighbors, warrant the tender of amicable counsel when oc- 
casion therefor shall appear, and deeming such counsel due to our recog- 
nized impartiality aud to the position of the Uuited States as the founder, 
and in some sense the guarantor and guardian of republican principles 
on the American continent, it seems proper now to instruct you touch- 
ing a point upon which we feel some natural concern. I refer to the 
question of boundaries and territorial jurisdiction pending between 
Mexico and Gnateuiala. 

In the time of the Empire the forces of Iturbide overran a large part 
of the territory of what now constitutes Central America, which had 
then recently thrown oft the Spanish domination. 

The changing fortunes of war resulted in the withdrawal of Mexican 
forces from most of that region, except the important provinces of Soco- 
nusco and Chiapas, which remained under their control. Since that 
time the boundaries between the two countries have never been adjusted 
upon a satisfactory basis. Mexico became a Republic, did not forego 
claims based upon the imperial policy of conquest and absorption, while 
Guatemala, resisting further progress of Mexican arms, and disputing 
step by step the conquests already made, has never beeu able to come 
to a decision with her more powerful neighbor concerning the relative 
extension of their jurisdiction in the disputed strip of territory lying 
between the Gulf of Tehuau tepee and the Peninsula of Yucatan, 

Under these circumstaiicf s the Government of Guatemala has made 
a formal application to the President of the United States to lend his 
good offices toward the restoration of a better state of feeling between 
the two liepublics. This application is made in frank and conciliatory 
terms, as to the natural protector of the rights and national integrity 
of the republican forms of government existing so near our shores, and 
to which we are bound by so many ties of history and of material interest. 
This Government can do no less than give friendly and considerate heed 
to the representations of Guatemala, even as it would be glad to do 
were the appeal made by Mexico, in the interest of justice and a better 
undei standing. The events fresh in the memory of the living genera- 
tion of Mexicans, when the moral and material support of the United 
States, although then engaged in a desperate domestic struggle, was 
freely lent to avert the danger which a foreign Empire threatened to the 
national life of the Mexican Eepublic, afford a gratifying proof of the 
purity of motives and benevolence of disposition with which the United 
States regards all that concerns the welfare and existence of its sister 
Eepublics of the continent. 



4 

26 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

It is alleged, on belialf of Guatemala, that diplomatic efforts to come 
to a better understanding with Mexico have proved unavailing; that 
under a partial and preliminary accord looking to the ascertainment of 
the limits in dispute, the Gautemalan surveying parties sent out to 
study the laud with a view to i)roposing a basis of detinitive settlement 
have been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities ; that Gautemalan 
agents for the taking of a census of the inhabitants of the territory in 
question have been dealt with in like summary manner; and, in flue, 
that the Government of Mexico has slowly but steadily encroached 
upon the bordering country heretofore held by Guatemala, substituting 
the local authorities of Mexico for those already in possession, and so 
wi<lening the area in contention. 

It is not the present province of the Government of the United States 
to express an opinion as to the extent of either the Guatemalan or the 
Mexican claim to this region. It is not a self-constituted arbitrator of 
the destinies of either country, or of both, in this matter. It is simply 
the impartial friend of both, ready to tender frank and earnest counsel 
touching anything which may menace the peace and prosperity of its 
neighbors. It is, above all, anxious to do any and everything which will 
tend to make stronger tbe natural union of the Republics of the conti- 
nent in the face of the tendencies of other and distant forms of govern- 
ment to influence the internal affairs of Spanish America. It is espe- 
cially anxious iu pursuance of this great policy to see the Central Ameri- 
can Republics more securely united than they have been in the past in 
protection of their common interests, which interests are, in their out- 
ward relations, identical iu principle with those of Mexico and of the 
United States. It feels that everything which may lessen the good will 
and harmony so much to be desired between the Spanish- American Re- 
publics of the isthmus must, in the end, disastrously affect their mutual 
well-being. The responsibility for the maintenance of this common 
attitude of united strength is, in the President's conception, shared by 
all. and rests no less upon the strong states than upon the weak. 

Without, therefore, in any way prejudging the contention between 
Mexico and Guatemala, but acting as the unbiased counselor of both, 
the President deems it his duty to set before the Government of Mexico 
his conviction of the danger to the principles which Mexico has so sig- 
nally and successfully defended in the past which would ensue, should 
disrespect be shown to the boundaries which separate her from her 
weaker neighbors, or should the authority of force be resorted to in es- 
tablishment of rights over territory which they claim, without the con- 
ceded justiflcation of her just title thereto. And especially would the 
President regard as an unfriendly act toward the cherished plan of 
upbuilding strong republican governments in Si)anish America, if Mex- 
ico, whose power and generosity should be a like signal in such a case, 
shall seek or permit any misunderstanding with Guatemala, when the 
l)ath toward a pacific avoidance of trouble is at once so easy and so im- 
perative an international duty. 

You are directed to seek an interview with Sefior'Mariscal, in which 
to possess him with the purport of this instruction. In doing so, your 
judgment and discretion may have full scope to avoid an^^ misunder- 
standing on his part of the spirit of friendly counsel which prompts the 
President's course. Should Seilor Mariscal evince a disposition to 
become more intimately acquainted with the President's views after 
your verbal exposition thereof, you are at liberty to read this dispatch 
to him, and should he so desire, to give him a copy. 
I am, «&:c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



BOUND AKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 27 

No. 21. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. 
[Published heretofore iu Senate Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

No. 139, couMeutial.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 16, 1881. 
Sir : To enable you to more intimatelj^ understand the contention 
put forth by Guatemala in the dispute of which my No. 138 of this date 
treats, and to appreciate the entire impartiality of the attitude of this 
Government in the matter, I transmit, for your confidential perusal, 
copies of my correspondence* with the Guatemalan minister on the sub- 
ject. 

I am, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



No. 22. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Eelations.] 

No. 142.] Department of State, 

Washington, June 21, 1881. 

Sir : I had hardly completed my instruction to you of the 16th in- 
stant. No. 138, when information reached me from the United States 
minister at the Guatemalan capital, placing in a still graver light the 
condition of the relations between Mexico and Guatemala touching the 
possession of the territory of Soconusco. In fact, so serious is the ap- 
prehension caused in the mind of the President by these untoward re- 
ports, that I feel constrained to supplement my previous instructions to 
you on the subject with even more of energy and succinctness. 

It appears now as though the movement on the part of Mexico was 
not merely to obtain possession of the disputed territory, but to precip- 
itate hostilities with Guatemala, with the ultimate view of extending 
her borders by actual conquest. Large bodies of Mexican troops are 
said to be on their way to Soconusco, and the exigency is reported to 
be so alarming that plans for national defense are uppermost in the 
minds of President Barrios and his advisers. Frequent border raids 
into Guatemalan territory have inflamed the passions of the residents 
of the frontier country, and the imminence of a collision is very great. 
Of the possible consequence of war it may be premature to speak, but 
the information possessed by the Department intimates the probable 
extension of hostilities to the other Central American states, and their 
eventual absorption into the Mexican federal system. 

I cannot believe it possible that these designs can seriously enter into 
the policy of the Mexican Government. Ot' late years the American 
movement towards fixity of boundaries and abstention from territorial 
enlargement has been so marked, and so necessarily a part of the conti- 
nental policy of the American Kepublics, that any departure therefrom 
becomes necessarily a menace to the interests of all. 

* For correspondence inclosed see Documents Nos. 12 and 13. 



28 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AMD GUATEMALA. 

This is a matter touching which the now established policy of the 
Government of the United States to refrain from territorial acquisition 
gives it the right to use its friendly offices in discouragement of any 
movement on the part of neighboring states which may tend to disturb 
the balance of ])Ower between them. More thnn this, the maintenance 
of this honorable attitude of example involves, to a hirge extent, a moral 
obligation on our part, as the strong but disinterested friend of all our 
sister states, to exert our influence for the preservation of the national 
life and integrity of any one of them against aggression, whether this 
may come from abroad or from another American Republic. 

No state in the American system has more unequivocally condemned 
the forcible extension of domain at the expense of a weaker neighbor 
than Mexico herself; and no state more heartily concurs in the con- 
demnation of filibusterism in every form than the United States. It is 
clearly to the mutuul interest of the two countries, to whose example 
the success of republican instiiutions on this continent is largely due, 
that their policy in this regard should be identical and unmistakable. 

As long as the broader international diplomacy of our day afibrds 
peaceable recourse to principles of equity and justice in settlement of 
controversies like that between Mexico and Guatemala, the outbreak 
of a war between them would, in the judgment of the President, involve 
much further-reaching results than the mere transitory disturbance of 
the entente cordiale so much desired by the United States Government 
between all the American Republics. Besides the transfers of territory 
which might follow as enforced compensation for the costs of a war, it 
is easy to foresee the serious complications and consequent dangers to 
the American system, should an opening be aftbrded to foreign powers 
to throw their influence or force into the scale, in determination of the 
contest. Mexico herself has but too recently recovered from the effects 
of such a foreign constraint not to ai^preciate at its full force the con- 
sideration thus presented. The peaceful maintenance of the status quo 
of the American commonwealths is of the very essence of their policy 
of harmonious alliance for self-preservation, and is of even more imj)or- 
tance to Mexico than to the United States. 

I have adverted in my JSTo. 138 to the desire of the United States 
that its neighbors should possess strong and piosperous governments, 
to the assurance of their tranquillity from internal disturbance and out- 
side interference. While we wish this happy result for Mex ico, we equally 
wish it for the other Spanish-American nationt^. It is no less indispen- 
sable to the welfare of Central America than of Mexico; and by moral 
influence and the interposition of good offices, it is the desire and the 
intention of the United States to hold up the Republics of Central 
America in their old strength, and to do all that may be done toward 
insuring the tranquillity of their relations among themselves, and their 
collective security as an association of allied interests, possessing, in 
their common relationship to the outer world, all of the elements of na- 
tional existence. In this enlarged policy we confidently ask the co-op- 
eration of Mexico. A contrary course on her part could only be re- 
garded as an unwise step, while any movement directly leading to the 
absorption, in whole or i)art, of her weaker neighbors, would be deemed 
an act unfriendly to the best interests of America. 

It is desired that you should make earnest, but calm, representation 
of these views of the President to the Mexican minister for foreign af- 
fairs. In addition to embodying the main points of my previous instruc- 
tion, No. 138, you will make use of such temperate reasoning as will 
serve to show Senor Mariscal that we exi)ect every eflbrt to be made 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 2d- 

by his Government to avert a conflict with Guatemala by diplomatic 
means, or, these failing, by resort to arbitration. And you will espe- 
cially intimate,'' discreetly but distinctlj^, that the good feeling between 
Mexico and the United States requires, and will be fortified by, a frank 
avowal that the Mexican policj^ toward the neighboring states is not 
one of conquest or aggrandizement, but of consideration, peace, and 
friendship. 

I have written this instruction rather to strengthen your own hands 
in the execution of the delicate and responsible duty thus confided to 
you, than with a view to its formal communication to Seiior Mariscal by 
reading and leaving a copy of it with him. If, in your discretion, the 
important ends in view will be subserved by your making the minister 
acquainted with portions hereof, you are at liberty to do so, while re- 
garding the instruction as a whole in a confidential light, and as sup- 
plementary to my No. 138, which you have been authorized to commu- 
nicate in extenso, if desirable. 
I am, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



No. 23. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. 

[Published heretofore in Foreigu Relations.] 

No. 143, confidential.] Department of State, 

Washington^ June 21, 1881. 
Sir : You will observe in my instructions of tlie 16th instant and to- 
day guarded suggestions that there is a possibility of foreign complica- 
tions growing out of the Soconusco dispute. For your confidential in- 
formation on this point 1 may observe that there is good reason to think 
that if driven to extremities Guatemala might cede her territorial rights 
in dispute to some European power. In view of the anxiety which sev- 
eral of these have shown of late to gain some footing, however slight, on 
the Pacific coast of the isthmus, this is a contingency not to be over- 
looked in any dispassionate consideration of the question. 
I am, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



No. 24. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. 
[Telegram, published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, June 23, 1881. 
Say to Mexican Government that the President very earnestly re- 
quests that any contemplated hostilities against Guatemala may be 
suspended, at least until the views of this Government can be fully 
communicated. Instructions are now mailed, and United States tend- 
ers its good offices in the interest of peace. 

Tou will co-operate with Dr. Herrera, Guatemalan minister, in all 
wise steps looking to peace and friendly adjustment of all troubles. 

BLAINE. 



30 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

lY.— OBJECTION OF MEXICO TO THE MEDIA TION OF THE UNITED ST J TES- 

No. 25. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Published heretofore iu Foreign Eelations.] 

No. 232.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, July 12, 1881. (Received July 28.) 

Sir : In conformity with the instructions contained in your dispatch 
No. 138 (June 16), I sought and obtained an interview with Seiior Maris- 
cal on the 9th instant. 

I informed him that the Government of Gautemala had made a formal 
application to the President of the United States to lend his good of- 
fices towards the restoration of a better state of feeling between Guate- 
mala and Mexico, and I possessed him, as well as I could, with the con- 
tents and terms of your dispatch, taking care to impress upon him that 
the suggestions therein contained were prompted by nothing but the 
kindest feeling on the part of the President towards both countries, and 
that they were made in the interest of peace and harmony between 
neighboring Republics, in whose welfare the United States felt a natural 
and deep interest. 

Seiior IMariscal spoke quite earnestly with reference to Guatemala, 
insisting that it was Mexico that had cause of complaint against Guate- 
mala, instead of Guatemala's having just cause of complaint against 
Mexico. 

He informed me that some time since a convention had been entered 
into between the t^o nations for the purpose of fixing the boundaries 
thereof, and that the work was not completed because the time allowed 
therefor had not proved sufficient. 

I asked him whether there was any imputation, on either side, of bad 
faith in not completing the work. He replied that there was not. I 
inquired of him whether it was true that parties sent out hy Guatemala 
to study the land with a view to proposing a basis of settlement had 
been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities. He replied that one per- 
son had been so arrested, but that his arrest was due to the fact that 
he had, without permission, proceeded much farther upon conceded 
Mexican territory than he was authorized to do, and that he had been 
arrested, but that as soon as the fact of his arrest was made known to 
the proi^er authorities he was released, and that he was not in durance 
more than twenty four hours. 

I asked him whether Guatemala's agents for the taking of a census 
of the inhabitants of the territory in disjiute had been also arrested and 
imprisoned. He replied that by the convention above allu('ed to it was 
agreed that pending the survey which was to be made, and the final 
settlement of the boundary between the two countries, the boundary 
should be considered the same as that which had existed in 1874, and 
that a Guatemala agent, who had gone on the Mexican side of that line 
for the purpose of taking a census of the people in that section (Mexi- 
cans), had been arrested. 

In reply to the suggestion of the arbitrament of the President of the 
United States, he replied that whatever Mexico might be willing to ac- 
cede to in the future, there was nothing at the present moment to arbi- 
trate about. He said that Mexico had pro^josed to Guatemala to renew 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 31 

the convention for the appointment of a commission to survey the tract 
of country which was in dispute, that the question of the appointment 
of such a commission was pending, and that until that question should 
be decided there was, in reality, no dispute to submit to an arbitrator. 
He also declared that if there had been any delay in the appointing of 
such a commission, the fault was altogether with Guatemala. He also 
said that troops had been sent to the frontier, as the President had 
announced in his message to Congress, but that they were sent there 
for the purpose of protecting Mexican citizens, and not with any view 
of making war upon Guatemala. Mr. Mariscal was very earnest in his 
denials of any cause of complaint on the part of Guatemala, and as to 
the want of any necessity of an arbitration, so much so, that I deemed 
it proper, in order that there might be no possible question hereafter 
either as to the letter or the spirit of your instructions, or their inter- 
pretation by me, to read to Seiior Mariscal your dispatch, aud offered 
to send him a copy thereof, which he accepted, and which 1 did. 

Unformed him that I should seek another interview with him in arder 
that, after haviug carefully .perused the dispatch, he might be able to 
give me his views again upon the subject thereof. 

Mr. Herrera, the minister from Guatemala here, has frequently spoken 
to me in general terms upon the differences between his Government 
and Mexico, and not long since he said that practically there was war 
between them, and that his country would be forced to appeal to the 
Government of the United States for protection. In these conversations 
I took the part of a listener, at the same time that I felt naturally in- 
terested in the recital of the wrongs of which he complained, and which 
if they existed were calculated to breed trouble between the two coun- 
tries; for no one, at least no one who wishes for the success of repub- 
lican institutions, can look upon any disturbance between the several 
Eepublics of our continent without concern. 

On the occasion of the opening of the Mexico and Morelos Railway, 
however, I read a speech of Mr. Herrera's, from which I inferried that 
if there had been any cause of disturbance between his country and 
Mexico it had been done away with. I therefore hoped and believed 
that the complaints of ill treatment, of which he had spoken to me, had 
disappeared. • 

I was consequently disappointed when I was informed by your dis- 
patch that trouble still existed between them, and of a grave character. 

The day after your dispatch was received Seiior Herrera called on 
me. He had received a synopsis, at least, of your correspondence with 
the minister from Guatemala at Washington. I did not, of course, 
acquaint him with the nature of your instructions, but as I knew he 
was informed that some instructions had been given me, I went to his 
dwelling the following day in order that I might examine the maps of 
the country which he had and which are not in this legation. 

In the interview I had with him, except as to the question of bound- 
ary, I limited myself to suggesting to him the propriety of not men- 
tioning to any one that the President of the United States had offered 
bis mediation in the matter. 

On the 11th he called on me again, and read to me a portion of a dis- 
patch which he had received from the Guatemalan minister at Wash- 
ington of the 26th of June, in which he was informed that you had 
learned that Mexican troops had been ordered down to the frontier to 
be used offensively against Guatemala, and that you had sent me a tele- 
gram upon the subject. Also, that he (the Guatemalan minister at 
Washington) had telegraphed him (Mr. Herrera). I informed Mr. Her- 



32 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 

rera that I had not received a telegram from you upon the subject. 
He said neither had he. He expressed to me his inteution of goiug to 
seethe President, with the purpose of saying to him tliat unless the proy*- 
osition, which had been made to submit the differences between the two 
countries to the arbitrament of the President of the United States, was 
acceded to, he would leave the country and look to the United States 
for i)rotection, and he asked my advice in the matter. 

I replied 1 could give him no official advice u[)on the subject of his 
seeing the President in person, instead of Seiior Mariscal, but I asked 
him, suppose the President rei>lied to him that the alternative which 
he i)resented amounted to a declaration of war, and that he accepted it, 
what would he say"? And in respect of his saying that he would look 
to the United States for protection, I told him that it ap])eared to me 
that this might be looked upon as a threat, which I did not think 
would be effective; besides which it was one which i did not think he 
was authorized to make, for 1 understood that up to now, at least, the 
President of the United States, while he had offered to mediate be- 
tween the two countries, had not coupled this offer with an announce- 
ment to Mexico that she must accept his niediation or tight. 

He inquired of me again what 1 thought he had best do. I replied that 
if I were in his ])lace 1 should be careful, under all circumstances, not to 
do anything which could give the secretary for foreign affairs any rea- 
son to think that he had treated him slightingly, and that the secretary 
certainly would be justified in thinking so if he sought the President, 
instead of calling on him, who was the official channel of communica- 
tion between them, and that if I was in his place, situated as he then 
was, I should call on Senor Marisral and say to him that I had been in- 
formed by the Guatemalan minister at Washington that the President 
of the United States had consented to act as arbitrator between our 
countries, provided both were willing that he should do so; that I was 
glad of this, as there could, I should suppose, be no objection to this, 
and that if Mexico consented, as I did not doubt she would, there would 
be no necessity for pursuing the question of appointing the commission 
which was then pending between us. 

Later in the afternoon Mr. Herrera informed me that he had seen 
Senor Mariscal, but that his interview with him had been far from a 
pleasant or satisfactory one. The substance of it was, according to 
Senor Mariscal, that the wiong was all on the side of Guatemala ; that 
there had been double dealing on her part; that while negotiations were 
pending here, Guatemala had sought the intervention of the Washing- 
ton Government, and that that intervention was intended by Guatemala 
as a menace to Mexico, all of which had angered President Gonzalez 
when he was informed of it ; that he would know how to reply to Presi- 
dent Garfield's suggestion of arbitration, declining the same without 
giving offense to the United States, and that he was then preparing a 
statement of the differences between the two countries, in reply to the 
copy of the dispatch which I had left with him, which he would send 
me, he thought, the following day. 

Mr. Herrera appeared somewhat concerned as to the future, but I 
endeavored to show him that his fears were not well founded. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MOKGAN. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 33- 

No. 26. 
Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Pnblislied. lieretofore in Foreign Eelations.] 

No. 240.] United States Legation, 

Mexico^ July 19, 1881. (Keceived August 4.) 

Sir : I had another interview of Senor Mariscal on the 15th instant, 
at the department of foreign affairs, upon the subject of the differences 
between Mexico and Guatemala. 

I informed him that since our last interview, an account of which I 
gave you in my dispatch No. 232, 12th instant, I had received other dis- 
patches from you, from which it would appear that great interest was 
felt at Washington upon the subject of the unhappy disputes between 
the two Governments in question, and that I had felt it to be my duty 
before receiving his formal answer to the proffer made a few days since 
by the President of the United States to act as mediator between them, 
to make some further suggestions to him with reference thereto. 

Senor Mariscal manifested something of excitement, I thought, and 
interrupted me by repeating the complaints which Mexico had, as he 
said, just grounds to make against Guatemala ; of her want of fair deal- 
ing, and, in fact, duplicity in pretending to negotiate a convention with 
him for the appointment of commissioners to survey the strip of territory 
which was in dispute, with the view of finally settling the boundaries 
between the two countries, while she had been secretly attempting to 
obtain the interference of the United States in their disputes, thus ren- 
dering the appointment of a commission unnecessary. He insisted upon 
it that it was Guatemala that had committed acts of aggression upon 
Mexico, instead of Mexico upon Guatemala. He cited as a fact that it 
had been agreed between the two countries when the convention which 
had been entered into between them for the appointment of a commis- 
sion to survey the territory in dispute — the convention which expired 
by limitation without having acct>mplished its work — that pending the 
settlement of the boundary question, the line of demarkation should be 
at a certain point, and that not long since Guatemalan troops had gone 
beyond that point, had planted the Guatemalan flag upon territory which 
was conceded to be Mexican, and had demolished certain monuments 
which had been erected thereon. 

He spoke a great deal about the President of Guatemala, and the 
condition of the Government of that country. But to this I paid little 
attention, as I had not gone to him to discuss either the conduct of the 
one or the condition of the other. As soon as the opportunity pre- 
sented itself I said I had been informed that Mexico had sent a large 
body of troops to the Guatemalan frontier, and I asked him if my in- 
formation was correct. He replied that some troops had been sent 
there, but that the number was not large, with orders to retake })Osses- 
sion of that jjortion of the territory which had been occupied by the 
Guatemalan troops, and to i^ebuild the monuments which had been ' 
destroyed. (These monuments, he afterwards informed me, vn ere a num- 
ber of crosses standing on pedestals of stone, but not erected as mark- 
ing the boundary between the two countries.) I said to him, ''Suppose 
the Mexican troops find troops from Guatemala on the disputed ground, 
and these latter deny the right of the Mexican troops to enter there- 
upon, what will be the result?" He replied that the Mexican troops 
would then endeavor to take possession. 
H. Ex. 154 3 



34 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

I remarked to him that all this only confirmed the information which 
my Government had received, viz: thaiTan angry feeling, to say the 
least of it, existed between Mexico and Guatemala, which angry feel- 
ing might at any time result in war, and that it was with the view of 
avoiding such a calamity that the President of the United States, as 
the common friend of both parties, would be willing to accept the 
position of mediator between them. He replied he did not think that 
the time for mediation had arrived ; that a proposition for appointing 
a commission to survey the territory in dispute was then pending, and 
until that was disposed of, he did not see what could be done ; that 
Mexico had been insulted by Guatemala, and that before any further 
negotiations were entered upon, matters should be replaced in their 
former position. Thereupon, I said, I had called upon him in the ex- 
pectation that he would declare that Mexico entertained no hostile pur- 
pose against Guatemala, and I regretted to find myself mistaken, it 
being apparent to me that as Mexico had sent troops to occupy a dis- 
puted territory, if Guatemala had also sent troops there, the two armies 
were facing each other, and a conflict might ensue at any momeiit ; that 
this was a state of things which the United States could only look upon 
as a calamity, which it was their duty, if possible, to prevent. 

He repeated that Mexico had been insulted by Guatemala, and asked 
" What is she to do f I answered at once, " Submit the question of in- 
sult, as well as the matters of interest which are in dispute between the 
two countries, to the arbitration of a common friend." I then directed 
his attention to the condition of affairs which would in all probability re- 
sult from any open act of hostility on the part of either country; that 
one act of hostility would probably result in war, and that whatever 
might be the proximate cause of the war, or whatever might be the 
present purpose of Mexico to confine her efforts to maintaining what 
she claimed was the admitted boundary of her territory, there was no 
telling, when a war was once commenced, where it would end, and that 
a war once begun between Mexico and Guatemala would, almost of 
necessity, resolve itself, on the part of Mexico, in one of conquest, for, I 
said, the result thereof could scarcely be doubtful ; that Mexico would 
insist upon Guatemala's paying the expenses of the war; that as she 
would not have the means of doing this, a portion of her territory would 
be taken from her, and that thus a movement would be inaugurated 
which would possibly result in the attempted absorption of all the Re- 
publics as far as the Isthmus of Panama by the Kepublic of Mexico ; 
that this raised the question far above the consideration of the individ- 
ual interests of Mexico and Guatemala; that the preservation of all 
the Republics on the continent in their present integrity of territory and 
under their present form of government was of the first importance, 
and that the United States could not look upon any act, on the part of 
either of them, which might result in breaking them up or reducing 
their present territorial limits, with anything but disfavor. 

In evidence of the interest which the United States felt upon this 
subject, I reminded him of the i^osition assumed by them towards France, 
then one of the most powerful Empires of Europe — when a great portion 
of Mexico was in the power of French troops, and when, but for the inter- 
vention of the United States, and this at a moment when they had only 
just emerged from a struggle upon which their life had been at issue — a 
struggle which had taxed their resources to the utmost to enable them 
to maintain a war which had lasted for years, and which had been waged 
upon a scale of enormous proportions, and without which action on their 
jiart it is possible that not only Mexico, but all the territory south of it, 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 35 

as far as the Isthmus of Panama, would have become a French depend- 
ency, a result which the United States were prepared to take up arms, 
even in their then exhausted condition, against the French Empire, to 
prevent. 

I called his attention to the fact that this was a question in which 
Mexico was as largely interested as any of the Eepublics of Central 
America ; that the Government of the United States and the people of 
the United States were opposed to fllibusterism in any of its forms, 
but that it would be a bad example for Mexico to set to the world if she 
were to set about conquering neighboring territory, and that this exam- 
ple I hoped she would be slow to give. 

I endeavored to impress upon him the fact that Mexico had now suf- 
ficient territory to support iu comfort and happiness a population of 
one hundred millions of people; that the small territory of Guatemala 
would add only a trifle to that which Mexico already possessed, and 
looking at the question under discussion from the standpoint of her 
own interest, it was evident to me that the course which it seemed to 
me she was prepared to pursue could do her no good, and might do her 
a great deal of harm. 

I also suggested to him the evil consequences which would probably 
result from the mere fact of a state of war, ujpon the many and vast 
schemes of public improvement which were in progress of construction, 
as well as in contemplation — schemes which, if carried out, would con- 
nect all of her territory, and make every i)ortion thereof accessible, as 
well as give to her the means of communication with the United States 
by safe and rapid methods of transportation, all of which would cer- 
tainly be disturbed, if they were not suspended, by a state of war ; that 
the money which had been, up to the present moment, spent upon these 
works had come from the United States ; that our people were ready 
and willing to furnish all that might be required to complete them, and 
that they felt, therefore, a natural interest that the suras which they 
had already expended should not be lost, as well as that their future 
undertakings should not be embarrassed by war. 

I urged upon him that a war between any two of the North American 
Eepublics would be a reproach upon republican institutions, which 
would not fail to be made against them by those whose interest it was 
to oppose our form of government; that from this point of view, the 
question was one of importance to the entire North American continent, 
and that, when our common interests were threatened in this direction, 
it was, T thought, the duty of the United States to interpose their good 
offices to prevent it ; that as the United States were the pioneers upon 
this continent of republican institutions, they were justified in oifering 
their advice when they saw that a war was imminent between either of 
the Eepublics thereon, and that their position and disinterestedness 
seemed to render it only proper that their advice should not be lightly 
rejected. I assured him that the suggestions of which I was the inter- 
preter were prompted alike from the purest feelings of friendship which 
the President entertained for both Mexico and Guatemala, as well as 
from his desire to see that the integrity of the two nations should not 
be impaired ; that in the present advanced state of public opinion, di- 
plomacy should first be exhausted, and after that arbitration, before 
war should even be thought of, and that I therefore earnestly hoped 
he would, in the reply which he had informed me he was preparing, ad- 
mit the justice of the position I had assumed and signify the assent of 
President Gonzalez to the offer made by the President. 

This is the substance of my remarks. My words, tone, and manner 



36 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

were as conciliatory as I could make tliem, although 1 left, I think, no 
room for doubt as to my earnestness, or the views which I was instruct- 
ed to present. 

Seiior Mariscal replied that the present purpose of Mexico was to 
cause the Guatemalan troops to evacuate the territory which they had, 
in the opinion of the Mexican Government, occupied without authority, 
and to rei)lace the "monuments," as he called them, in the state in 
which they were prior to their demolition. This done, he would then 
be ready to renew negotiations for the purpose of appointing a commis- 
sion to survey the territory in dispute, in order that the question of 
boundary" might be finally settled. He denied that Mexico had com- 
mitted any act of aggression upon Guatemala, and distinctly disavowed 
any intention on the part of Mexico to use her troops for the purpose 
of conquering any portion of the territory belonging to Guatemala, and 
stated that of this disavowal I might inform you. Thereupon I took 
leave of him. 

In the meanwhile, nearly a fortnight has elapsed since I first brought 
the matter to Sefior Mariscal's attention, and he has not furnished me 
with the written reply which he stated he would prepare, although I 
said to him in my last interview that I was anxious to forward it by 
this mail. I do not feel justified iu waiting for it before informing you 
of what has occurred up to date. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



No. 27. 
3fr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 
[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 247.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, August 5, 1881. (Received August 19.) 

Sir : I transmit herewith copy and translation of a note of 30th July 
from Senor Mariscal, as well as of the " memoranda " made by him of 
our interview of the 9th of July. 

Mr. Mariscal, at the same time, sent me a co])y of M. Matias Rome- 
ro's "Refutacion de las Inculpaciones hechas al C. Matias Romero por 
el Gobierno de Guatemala " ; also copy of '' Bosquejo Historico dela Ag- 
regacion a Mexico de Chiiipas y Soconusco" ; a colh'ction of official docu- 
ments ; "Question de Limitas entre Mexico y Guatemala ; " " Chiapas y 
Soconusco, con motivo de la question limites enti'e Mexico y Guatemala," 
and a pamphlet upon the same subject by Juan N. de Pereda. 

The first two arc enormous volumes. I do not send thenj to you, as I 
am not requested to do so, and because I sui)pose they are in the library 
of the State Department. 

Sefior Mariscal's "memoranda" agre(s, I think, substantially with 
the report of the interview I had of him on the 9th July. You will 
observe that he does not mention our second interview (July 15). 

It is evident from Sefior Mariscal's "uiemoramla" that Mexico is in 
no humor at present to acquiesce to any jiroposition to submit her dis- 
pute with Guatemala to an arbitration, and also, I think, that I was justi- 
fied in saying to him that b(ith countries occui)ied a hostile i)osition 
towards each other which niight, at any moment, resolve itself into a 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 37 

state of war, and therefore that the^^ should be willing to have their 
difficulties adjusted by a common friend. 

Some time ago, as you are aware, Colombia proposed to the Repub- 
lics south of the Rio Grande that au international congress should be 
held, with power to enter into a compact by which all matters of dis- 
pute arising between any two or more of them should be submitted to 
arbitration — the arbitrator to be the President of the United States. 

Seiior Mariscal has acknowledged the receipt of this j^roposition and 
has declared that the President would take it into consideration. But 
the Diario Oficial has lately declared that the Mexican Government 
would not accept the proposition. This declaration, the editor says, is 
not the decision of the Government, but I suppose no one can doubt the 
source from whence the editor derived his inspiration. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure 1 in No. 247. — Translation.] 

Mr, Mariscal to Mr, Morgan. 

Department op Foreign Relations, 

Mexico, July 30, 1881. 
My Dear Mr. Morgan: In the iuterview whicli we had on the 9th of the current 
month, I had the honor of intimating to you that I would prepare a memorandum 
which would express with greater precision the reply I gave you upon the impor- 
tant question which occupied us, and would also add some observations, which it was 
impossible for me to explain at the moment, relative to the contents of the note from 
the Department of State of yonr Government which you had read to me. 

I have completed my memorandum, and inclose you a copy accompanying it, with 
several articles published in Mexico relative to the question of boundaries between 
this country and Guatemala. 
I avail, &c., 

IGNACIO MARISCAL. 



[Inclosure 2 in No. 347. — Translation.] 
MEMORANDA. 

On the 9th of the current month the honorable minister of the United States, hav- 
ing requested a special interview with the undersigned, minister of foreign relations, 
on a subject of great importance, came personally to the Department, and in a full 
and unreserved conversation explained the friendly sentiments entertained by his 
Government toward Mexico, referring at the same time to the note of the honorable 
Secretary of State, Mr. Blaine, a copy of which he had given to the undersigned some 
days previously, and in which this friendly spirit was most decidedly manifested. 

In continuation he arlded that, in the matter he was about to present, his Govern- 
ment disclaimed all intention of officious interference, and had no other interest in 
view than that arising from a desire for the maintenance of that peace and harmony 
between neighboring and friendly Republics which was essential to the good repute 
and prosperity of republican institutions, as to the nations which had adopted such 
institutions; and the people who had first planted republicanism on this continent 
could not do otherwise than feel a deep interest in its successful and permanent es- 
tablishment among the nations of the New World. 

His Government, however, did not assume on such grounds to interfere in the do- 
mestic affairs or mutual relations of the other American Republics, but confining it- 
self to sincere good wishes for their welfare it would make no pretensions to advance 
their interests otherwise than by its own example, and, when a proper occasion might 
present itself or circumstances appear to invite it, to offer a word of friendly counsel, 
disclaiming all selfish or interested purpose whatever, and trusting that it would be 
received in the same spirit in which it was offered. 

When Mr. Morgan perceived that the undersigned had been fully impressed with the 
sincerity of the sentiments expressed in behalf of his Government he added these 



38 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

"words: "All that I have said to your excellency you will find better expressed, and 
the business to -which it is applicable more clearly set forth, in the note of instruc- 
tions from my Government which I will read to you." He then proceeded to read the 
note sent him by the Hon. Mr. Bhiine, dated June IGth ultimo, informing him that the 
Government of Guatemala had formally applied to the Government of the United 
States, soliciting itsfrieudly intervention for the purpose of re-establishing the good 
understanding between the two Republics which bad been interrupted by the pend- 
ing question of disi)uted boundaries 

After the reading was concluded, Mr. Morgan offered a copy of the note to the un- 
dersigned, who expressed himself pleased to receive it. He then added that if the 
Mexican Government would agree that the question of boundaries between itself and 
Guatemala should be referred to arbitration, he believed the Government of the United 
States would act as arbitrator, and that its decision would undoubtedly be both just 
and impartial, as it could have uo other interest in the matter than the wish to as- 
sure peace and a better understanding between Mexico and her southern neighbor. 

Mr. Morgan then went on discussing the question from various standpoints, enlarg- 
ing upon the evils of war and observing that Mexico, even if victorious in a war with 
Guatemala, as from her decided superiority in the elements of power she undoubtedly 
would be, she must nevertheless suffer very seriously. In all probability her present 
promising movement in the direction of material improvement would be paralyzed, 
and still worse results might be anticipated from the evil example of two sister Repub- 
lics having resorted to force to settle their difficulties. 

The undersigned replied that he was fully conviuced the Government of the United 
States had been actuated in this matter by the most friendly and disinterested motives, 
but that it had been misled by misrepresentation of the question by Guatemala. He 
would overlook for the present certain errors in the statement of historical facts, as 
well as of some events of more recent date, appearing in the note of the honorable 
Secretary of State; errors attributable, without doubt, to the partial representations 
of the Guatemalan Government, and the fact that the history of Mexico is not generally 
known, as he proposed to himself without delay to prepare a memorandum in which 
that which has passed at this interview shall be more clearly presented, the errors 
alluded to rectified, and certain ideas expressed by the honorable Secretary of State 
more fully and carefully considered. He limited himself for the time to showing that 
at no period has the claim which Mexico maintains to the territory in dispute be- 
tween her and Guatemala been considered as founded on force or conquest ; an asser- 
tion which can be clearly demonstrated at a more opportune moment. 

The complaints of the Gautemalans, therefore, are not sincere, and the Government 
of General Barrios well knows how very diti'erent the facts are from the representa- 
tions it has made to the Government at Washington. 

Without any previous consultation with his excellency the President, he could as- 
sure Mr. Morgan that the friendly offers of his Government were highly apjireciated 
by Mexico, nor was there any reason whatever to apprehend an appeal to force for 
the settlement of this controversy with Guatemala, in view of the fact that for many 
years it had been discussed peacefully and patiently, and it had always been the pol- 
icy of Mexico to bring it to a friendly and satisfactory termination. The recent events 
of which the Gautemalan Government has complained have been matters of discussion 
in which it has not attempted to reply to the arguments advanced by Mexico — the 
later notes from this Government remaining unanswered. Their tactics have con- 
sisted in avoiding argument and relying on delays and evasions. 

The question as it stands at present awaits the report of a commission of engineers 
appointed jointly by the two Govtrnmeuts for the purpose of studying the frontier. 
These appointments were made by virtue of a convention suggested by Mexico, in 
which it was stipulated that there should be a suspension of the negotiations upon 
the question of the boundary while the said commission should i-econnoiter the fron- 
tier and establish certain points by astronomical observations which might be bases 
for further discussion. 

The time fixed by this convention has expired before the commi.ssioners have con- 
cluded their work, and Mexico, always anxious to bring about a fair and conscientious 
settlement, is endeavoring to renew the convention in order that the reconnaissance 
may be completed, as it seems impossible to discuss the question intelligently or to 
arrive at any satisfactory tei-ms of agreement without a fuller knowledge of the 
ground. This will demonstrate two things to Mr. Morgan : 

Ist. That the Mexican Government strongly desires a just and peaceful solution of 
the controversy. 

2d. That it is impossible to tell at present whether this question, or any branch of 
it, is in a proper condition to be submitted to arbitration. 

Respecting that phase of the controversy which involves a question of the rights 
of Mexico to the state of Chiapas with the department or district of Soconusco 
which it has held in possession for so many years, the Government of Mexico has re- 
peatedly declared that it cannot honorably entertain any discussion. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 39 

The pretensions of Guatemala which it is willing to discuss and on account of which 
the mapping and reconnoitering of the frontier has been undertaken, are those es-^ 
pecially relating to the boundaries of Chiapas and Soconusco on the side of Guate- 
mala, and even this portion of the question could not now be submitted to arbitra- 
tion, because the information necessary for its proper decision is still lacking. 

Mexico, however, is far from refusing positively ail proposals for arbitration, but it 
does not consider it advisable at present for the reasons expressed, and will reserve 
the right to determine whether or not it might accept such jiroposals at some future 
time on certain points in regaid to which arbitration might appear to be admissible. 

Aside from these considerations and without making any formal proposition to that 
effect, Mexico would be very glad indeed to accept the United States in the charac- 
ter of an arbitrator in its disputes with Guatemala, having the fullest confidence in 
the justice and impartiality of this mutual friend of the two parties. The interview 
ended with promises from Mr. Morgan to send a copy of the note which he had read, 
and on the part of the undersigned to prepare this memorandum, which, in addition 
to the foregoing, will embrace some observations touching the contents of the note 
alluded to. 

On examination of this important note, a copy of which was sent to the department 
the same day, I was impressed with the earnest desire evidenced by the writer to give 
assurance of the disinterested and friendly intentions of his nation. He uses the fol- 
lowing words : 

"Events still fresh in the memory of the present generation of Mexicans and occur- 
ring at a period when the United ,§tates, although herself engaged in a tremendous 
civil war, freely lent her moral and material assistance to avert a danger from a 
foreign Empire which menaced the existence of the Mexican Republic, should afford 
satisfactory evidence of the friendly disposition with which the United States regards 
all that concerns the welfare and existence of her sister Republics on this continent." 

Indeed, Mexico can never forget that which the living generation of Mexicans ex- 
perienced during the period to which the Hon. Mr. Blaine refers, when her people, 
exhausted, discouraged, and alone, struggled against the power of a foreign potentate 
assisted by a misguided faction of her own population, the United States did gener- 
ously extend her moral support, with such unmistakable evidence of popular sym- 
pathy that had the circumstances been different Mexico would have received such 
other support as would have terminated her struggle some years earlier. 

In the same dispatch we are told that the forces of the Emperor Iturbide, having oc- 
cupied a great portion of the territory of Central America, were constrained by a 
change in the fortunes of war to abandon all, even Soconusco and Chiapas, and that 
after Mexico had adopted republican institutions she still persisted in claims to" terri- 
tory founded on the imperial policy of conquest and absorption. 

In this statement several historical inaccuracies are apparent, one especially, which 
must be attributed to misinformation or an imperfect acquaintance with Mexican his- 
tory. Even during the reign of Iturbide it was not by conquest, but in accordance 
with the free will and wishes of the inhabitants of Chiapas and Soconusco, that they 
were united to Mexico, as was equally the case with all the states of Central America 
except San Salvador. 

Afterwards, availing themselves of the same liberty, these states withdrew from Mex- 
ico, and with Guatemala formed a Republic. Chiapas and Soconusco did not take part 
in this movement, but as Mexico had also become a Republic, they repeated their adher- 
ence to her and remained incorporated with her Government. It not being possible 
here to give a full historical account of these events, it may be sufScieut to note the 
fact that several able and well-studied publications have appeared in relation to the 
persistent and reiterated pretensions of Guatemali, and showing clearly the right 
which from the beginning Mexico had acquired to this portion of her territory, founded 
not upon conquest but upon the free will of its inhabitants. Among the published 
documents attbrding unanswerable evidence on these points, maybe noted those writ- 
ten respectively by Senor Don Matias Romero and Don Manuel Larrianzar — gentle- 
men well acquainted with everything relating to Chiapas and Soconusco ; Sehor Lar- 
rianzar being a native of Chiapas, and Senor Romero having lived in Soconusco, and 
having been obliged to abandon his property there, it having been ruined by Guate- 
malan invasions. But without reference to the contents of these publications a proper 
understanding of the inaccuracy of the Guatemalan staten)ent of this question may he 
obtained from the very able and exhaustive dispatch with its accompanying proofs, 
which Senor Lafragua as minister of foreign relations directed to the Guatemalan min- 
ister in this capital on the 9th of October, 1875. 

This dispatch, which was printed and published, triumphantly vindicates the origi- 
nal rights of Mexico to Chiapas and Soconusco, now assured beyond controversy by a 
possession of forty years' duration. 

This dispatch, which it might be supposed would have elicited a serious reply from 
the representative of Guatemala, still remains unanswered, a tacit acknowledgment 
that it is unanswerable. It requires but a brief r6sum4 of the points exhibited in this 



40 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

lengthy (Uspatch to prove that the titles of Mexico have act been derived from absorp- 
tion and conquest, as the calumniators of this Republic may have induced Mr. Blaine 
to belii've. 

The coucluding portion of the document alluded to has the following: 

" Suniiiiing up all that has been presented in this note the following points are dem- 
onstrated : 

"1st. Chiapas was a province possessing equal rights with the others composing 
the captaincy general of Guatemala. 

"2(1. Chiapas on the 3d of September, 1821, seceded voluntarily from Guatemala and 
united herself with Mexico. 

"3d. Chiapas on the 12th of September, 1824, united herself again with the Mexi- 
can states by the free vote of a majority of her inhabitants; the election, which re- 
sulted in a large majority in favor of Mexico, took place when there was no Mexican 
force anywhere within the territory. 

"4th. Soconusco in 1821 was a portion of the province of Ckiapas, and as such uni- 
ted herself to the Mexican Empire. 

"5th. Soconusco in 1821 was a portion of the province of Chiapas, and by her free 
vote united herself to Mexico on the 3d of May. 

"6th. The act passed on the 24th of July, 1824, in Tapachula, was revolutionary 
and illegal. 

"7th. Central America recognized the supreme junta of Chiapas and agreed to re- 
spect its determination." 

Without copying the whole 7'^sMm^ enough has been cited to convince any one that 
the Mexican Government does not base its original claim to Chiapas and Soconusco 
on the right of conquest. 

In regard to recent events, there are four points of complaint urged against Mexico 
which the Government of Guatemala has made available in presenting its case to the 
United States. 

1st. That diplomacy has been unavailing in bringing about an agreement with 
Mexico. 

2d. That there was a preliminary convention and some steps taken to ascertain 
what were the true Iwundaries, but the commissioners appointed by Guatemala 
and sent to reconnoiter the ground for the purpose of obtaining a basis for a definite 
agreement had been thrown into prison by the Mexican authorities. 

3d. That the agents of Guatemala charged with taking a census in the territory in 
question had been treated in the same manner. 

4th. That the Mexican Government had been encroaching, cautiously but cou- 
stantly, on the border territory wliich had formerly been under the jurisdiction of 
Guatemala, ousting her local otficersand substituting those of Mexico in their stead, 
thus stretching her authority over the disputed area. 

We will reply to these charges in their proper order: 

I. The efforts to settle this question of boundaries diplomatically have invariably 
been initiated by Mexico. In 1832 the Mexican Government sent to Guatemala as en- 
voy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary Senor Don Manuel Diez de Bouilla; 
and iu 1853 it sent Senor Don Juan N. de Pereda iu the same character, without, how- 
ever, obtaining any satisfactory result. Senor Pereda remained in Guatemala until 
1858. In the frequent conferences which he had with Senor Don Manuel Pavon, then 
the Guatemalan minister of foreign relations, that gentleman constantly declined to 
enter into any treaty on the subject of boundaries, saying that Guatemala had pro- 
posed in the negotiations pending with Mexico to recognize simply the statu quo of the 
boundary lines between the two countries without any alteration whatever. 

At length Senor Pereda was constrained to suspend ofticial relations with the Gua- 
temalan Government on account of its persistent refusal to treat on this question of 
boundaries and because in an ungraciotis and offensive manner it declined at his in- 
stance to send to the interior certain emigrants from Mexico who were conspiring 
against the peace of that Republic. There was no further attempt to negotiate on 
the boundary question until October, 1873, when Senor Lafragna, minister of foreign 
relations, directed a note to Senor Garcia Granados, charge d'affaires for Guatemala, 
urging the necessity of a final disposition of that question. In effect he iuvited the 
Government of that Republic to name a plenipotentiary authorized to open negotia- 
tions at this capital. 

Senor Uriarte, the new mininter from Guatemala, replied, after a delay of several 
months (iu July, 1H74), and after making inquiry by letter of Senor Lafragna, if he 
would accept the pro))osed invitation, declared that he was clothed with full powers 
to enter upon the negotiations. 

On the 21st of August Senor Uriarte presented a memorandum to serve as a basis 
for the discussion. 

After various conferences, Senor Lafragna replied to the memorandum in a note 
dated October 9, 1875, which was accompanied by the project of a treaty to arrange 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 41 

the boundaries between the two Republics. This important note of which we have 
spoken has never been answered, as previously stated. 

In July, 1877, negotiations were renewed by Seuor Vallarta as plenipotentiary on 
the part of Mexico, and Seiior Uriarte, minister of Guatemala. The lesult was the 
convention of the 7th of December of the same year. 

II. Reference is made to this convention in the note of the Hon. Mr. Blaine. 

By this convention, as has been before indicated, a mixed commission was created, 
composed of Mexican and Guatemalan engineers, who were charged with the survey 
and mapping of the disputed district and the tixing of certain points astronomically 
for the purpose of fnrnishing some reliable data aud throwing more light upon the 
question, contiuuiug their operations during the discussion of the subject between the 
two Republics. In tenth article it was stipulated that during the suspension of nego- 
tiations both the contracting parties should respect aud exact respect for " actual 
possession," neither making nor permitting any movement whatever in regard to 
boundaries, and suppressing every act of hostility, either proceeding from the au- 
thorities or the citizens of the respective countries. 

The com iiissiouers met at Tapachula on the 18th of November, 1878, and commenced 
operations. On the 26th of January, 1880, three engineers of the Guatemalan party 
accompanied by several natives appeared in the vicinity of Cuilco Viejo, a town of 
Soconusco, and set up a cross. Tlie local authorities supposed that this meant a 
movement of the landmark Pinabete, recognized as a boundary between the two Re- 
publics, and which was situated eight leagues more to the north ; the people of Ta- 
can^ pertaining to Guatemala having done the same thing several years before. Un- 
der this impression they interrogated the engineers, who, failing to give any satis- 
factory explanation of their action orto exhibit any papers by which their true char- 
acter might have been understood, were in consequence arrested by the said author- 
ities and afterward sent to Tapachula. Here they were immediately set at liberty 
by the political chief, wlio also gave them full satisfaction for their detention. This 
is the onlj' instance in which Guatemala can complain of the arrest of her commis- 
sioners, and it would seem in this case that ample satisfaction had been tendered. At 
the time, the Mexican Government believed that the local authoriiies had acted un- 
der an erroneous impression, but subsequent acts of the Guatemalan Government 
have justified the surmise that this was actually an attempt to remove the boundary. 

III. A similar attempt made some time previously had occasioned the arrest of the 
Guatemalan agents to whom we have alluded. In December, 1880, a commission 
composed of the alcalde of Tacau^ and four other individuals went for the ostensible 
purpose of taking a census of the occupants of some ranches which, although a league 
distant from the town of Cuilco Viejo, were considered as included within its corpo- 
rate limits. ■ Although they went under the pretense of taking a census, theirreal ob- 
ject was to exercise some act of jurisdiction which might be used as evidence that 
these ranches belonged to Guatemala. It may be remarked that the inhabitants of 
Tacana, of whose alcalde we are speaking, were the same people who moved the 
boundary mark of Pinabete some time before, which, if it had been permitted to re- 
main, would have included the said ranches within the jurisdiction of Guatemala, 
and we may further note that they had located this landmark in the same spot where 
the engineers had erected their cross. 

These agents spoken of, being in the act of violating an agreement by which they 
were bound to respect " actual possession," were therefore properly arrested and ar- 
raigned before the district judge, that they might be tried in conformity with the 
provisions of Mexican law. 

The minister of Guatemala made reclamations in this case, insisting that these 
ranches did actually belong to his country. 

In the reply which was given, dated the 27th of January ultimo, the inaccuracy of 
his assertions was clearly demonstrated by the authority of the official map recognized 
by Guatemala itself. It was evident that the said ranches were located within the 
provisional limits of Mexico, and that they belonged to this Republic. 

In refutation of the charges against the Mexican authorities, made in the note of 
Senor Herrera, it can be shown by recent events that the abuses complained of are all 
chargeable to the Guatemalan authorities. 

As Senor Herrera had based the rights of his country to the places indicated upon 
the fact that certain auxiliary alcaldes had been appointed by the authority of Sabi- 
nal, a town of Guatemala, the undersigned notitied him that these appointments had 
been made, for the first time, while the stipulations of the convention were still in 
force, which bound the two countries mutually to respect the statu quo in regard to 
boundaries, and that for the rest the fact <mly proved that Guatemala had violated 
her faith pledged by the articles of said convention. 

Senor Herrera confined his answer to saying that he would communicate the con- 
tents of this note to his Government, and up to date it has remained without further 
reply. 

IV. The charges against Mexico under this heading, to the efi'ect that she has been 



42 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

generally aud vaguely encroaching npou Guatemalan territory, are not only entirely 
false, but singularly reckless. 

There exists a map of Soconusco, projected by Don Jose C. Ibarra, very carefully 
planned, which may be seen by reading the geographical and statistical notices of 
that department which appear upon the margin. Upon this map are marked in red 
lines the old boundaries, and with green those which appear to have been recognized 
more recently. The intervening space between these lines indicates the encroach- 
ments made by Guatemala, and tiually, in a marginal note, the dates at which these 
advances were made have been distinctly specified. 

Latterly these encroachments have continued, and the archives of the department 
of foreign relations are filled with the proceedings to which they have given rise from 
1870 to the present day. 

Without perhaps being the most notable, yet we may call attention to the invasion 
which had for its object the destruction of the property of Senor Don Matias Rome- 
cro, in Soconusco, an event to which we have already alluded. Senor Romero is well 
known in Washington, where he resided for some years as the representative of Mex- 
ico. Notwithstanding the moderation and prudence which distinguished his char- 
acter, he could not escape the outrages of an invasion, in which certain natives of 
Guatemala, by order of one of the ofiicials of that State, entered his domain lying 
within Mexican territory, destroying his property, making prisoner of one of his de- 
pendents, and ill-treating others. 

In November, 1875, he presented his complaint to the Guatemalan Government, but 
up to date has received neither acknowledgment nor redress. 

In the same mouth and year the engineer Don Alexander Prieto, secretary of the 
Mexican legation at Guatemala, made a reconnaissance of the frontier under instruc- 
tions from Senor Gareza, then our minister near that Government. He traveled and 
made the reconnaissance in company with Senor General Barrios, President of Guate- 
mala (as we are informed by Senor Gareza in a letter to Senor Lafragua). The gov- 
ernor of Cliiapas, in office 2fith of November, 187.5, was also in company. 

The result of this visit was a topographic al sketch prepared by Prieto, which is 
preserved in the department, and which, from the fact of its having been prepared 
under the inspection of President Barrios himself and for other reasons, should be re- 
garded with suspicion by Guatemala. In this sketch the line of the actually existinj; 
boundary is laid down, as are also the points which were in dispute. This, line 
therefore, should indicate the statu quo intended to be observed by the convention of 
1877. 

It will appear, then, from the notes of the Guatemalan ministi r himself, that his 
Government, so far from having respected these stipulations, has violated them in 
Ponintanfi Las Chicharras, Cuilco-Viejo, and other points. The same Government 
has gone so far as to justify the acts of the alcalde Meouo, who attempted to assassi- 
nate a Mexican surveyor and set fire to ranchos on Mexican soil. It has done more; 
in December of the past year it sent a force, or permitted it to be placed under the 
orders of the prefect of San Marcos (a department of Guatemala), which invaded our 
territory and destroyed the boundary mark of Pinabete (the same that was destroyed 
by the inhabitants of Tacand, aud which was afterwards replaced). The said pre- 
fect then proceeded to hoist the Guatemala flag precisel.y on the spot, near Cuilco- 
Viejo, where the mysterious cross had been planted by the Guatemalan engineers. 

Remonstrances against such proceedings having been made to Guatemala, that 
Government refused to make any explanations to our minister, upon the pretext that 
the affair should be settled in Mexico, as Senor Loaeza had no instructions to receive 
the explanations. 

The minister of foreign relations, Senor Montufar, feeling himself embarrassed when 
our representative sent him the copy of a letter from the undersigned expressing 
great surprise at his conduct, replied that the occurrences in question had taken place 
on Guatemalan territory, without advancing any reason for his statement, and for- 
getting that the undersigned, in his unanswered note of 27th of January ultimo, had 
demonstiated the contrary. 

In the mean time (since December 31, 1879) the terms of the convention of 7th of 
December, 1877, had expired before the scientific commission had completed its work. 
The Mexican Government then proposed to Guatemala that the convention should be 
renewed, extending the agreement for a sufficient time to accomplish the desired 
object, determining at the same time that its engineers should continue on the frontier, 
as they have done, in spite of the fact that the Guatemalan engineers had been with- 
drawn by their Government, and that without giving Mexico notice of their removal. 

The President of Guatemala, however, has personally informed our minister that be 
was willing to renew the convention, and had sent instructions to this effect to Senor 
Herrera, the Guatemalan minister at Mexico. Nevertheless, SeRor Herrera has for 
several months considered himself without instructions that would enable him to 
negotiate, and alleges that those sent him were not sufficiently explicit. At this date 
(July 11), when Sefior Herrera called on the undersigned to speak of the friendly offers 



BOUNDARY BENWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 43 

of the United States, lie was asked if Guatemala had yet sent the promised instruc- 
tions to her minister. He intimated that he had them now as he had wished. 

This conduct of his Government, insincere and apparently incomprehensible, now 
finds its explanation in the approaches which the President of Guatemala has, through 
his representative, made to the Government of the United States. President Barrios, 
if we may judge from the facts, has hoped to gain time by applying to a friendly 
Government, complaining of imaginary injuries on 'the part of Mexico, and giving a 
false coloring to her conduct while he was begging for friendly assistance. 

In this application, however, it appears that he has failed to make any reference to 
the fact that at the solicitation of Mexico there was a pending negotiation for the 
renewal of the convention for the continuance of the reconnaissance and study of the 
frontier, a work which has been recognized and proclaimed by both Governments to 
be absolutely indispensable to enable them to fix the international boundaries, whether 
by diplomatic negotiations or any other peaceful means. 

The omissions and misstatements of General Barrios's Government in its representa- 
tions to the President of the United States, as well as the rest of his conduct in relation 
to this question of boundaries with Mexico, characterize his policy in this matter as 
entirely wauting in sincerity and frankness. 

All of which clearly indicates that the Government of Guatemala has no wish to 
settle this question, unless from some secure vantage ground (which it hopes perhaps 
to attain), by which it may realize all its pretensions, and it would appear meanwhile 
that it is disposed to stop at nothing which might promise to subserve its ends in this 
direction, assuming new obligations without any intention of fulfilling them, and 
evading all responsibilities by fresh intrigues and subterfuges. 

The facts briefly noted in this writing, in connection with others which we have not 
been able to present, authorize the suspicion that this Government in question, in ap- 
plying to that of the United States, did not propose to itself (as might superficially 
appear) to find an arbitrator to settle the question of boundaries. 

It is sufficiently obvious that Mexico could not under any circumstances submit her 
rights in Chiapas and Soconusco to arbitrament, as these states have for many years 
belonged to the Mexican Union and form an integral portion of the Republic. It is 
equally impiossible properly to arrange the boundary line between this state and Gua- 
temala without the preliminary knowledge of the ground in controversy, whoever 
might be the arbitrator that should undertake it. 

The real object, therefore, in thiis apparent call for arbitration, can be nothing more 
than to gain time, as on other occasions, to continue the petty encroachments as here- 
tofore, and to weaken the action of the Mexican Government to the condition of the 
simple defense of its own national territory. 

The undersigned, for the purpose of preserving a record of that which occurred in 
his interview with Mr. Morgan and the observations suggested by the note of the 
Hon. Mr. Blaine, has prepared this memorandum, and in evidence thereof affixes his 
signature thereto. 

Mexico, July 25, 1881. 

IGNACIO MARISCAL. 



No. 28. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 253.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico^ August 11, 1881. (Received August 25.) 

Sir: Complying with the instructions contained in your dispatch 
No. 150, June 29, I addressed a note to Senor Mariscal on the 7th in-, 
stant, in which I endeavored to point out to him the importance the 
United States attached to their having a recognized consular agent at 
Santa Cruz Point. 

Thinking that I might fortify my apj)lication in a personal interview, 
I called at the foreign office on yesterday afternoon (10th instant), where 
I saw him. 

I do not inclose a copy of my note to him, nor shall I now give the 
substance of my conversation with him upon the subject. This will be 



44 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

done when I receive liis reply to my note. I allude to tbe matter now 
merely as an introduction to a convenj^ation which I had with him upon 
an entirely different subject, and to explain to you how it happened the 
conversation occurred. 

As soon as I had concluded what I had to say upon the subject which 
had sent me to him, I arose to take my leave, whereupon JSefior Mariscal 
inquired of n)e whether 1 had forwarded to you tbe documents relating 
to Guatemala which accompanied his note to me of the 30th July, 1881. 
I replied that I had not. In the first place, I said, one of them was too 
large to send through the post. In the second place, that 1 supposed 
they were already in the library of the State Department. In the third 
l)lace, that they could only be of value to you at the present moment in 
case Mexico should agree with Guatemala that the differences between 
them should be submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator to be the Presi- 
dent of the United States, and that as Mexico did not seem inclined, I 
regretted to see, to do this, it was unnecessary that I should burden my 
mail with so much matter. 

Seiior Mariscal commenced at once to speak of the conduct of Guate- 
mala towards Mexico and the bad treatment Mexico had received at 
her hands, reiterating what he had said to me in our former interviews 
upon the subject, all of which I have reported to you. He appears to 
entertain a very bad opinion of the President of Guatemala, and to think 
that his appeal to the United States has a purpose beyond the settle- 
ment of the boundary between the two countries. He said, for instance, 
he had been informed that you had expressed an opinion favorable to 
the consolidation of the Central American Eepublics into one Govern- 
ment ; that the President of Guatemala was favorable to such a project; 
that he would like, in such an event, to become the President of the new 
nation, and that he was endeav^oring to obtain the influence of the United 
States to further his ambition in that direction. He seems impressed 
with the idea that General Barrios is Mexico's enemy, and that it would 
not be well to have his power increased. 

I replied that I could not speak as to what your views were upon the 
question of a consolidation of these Republics into one ; that I had been 
informed of a pioject of the kind which had been set on foot some time 
ago, to which the Presidents of each of the Republics were all agreed, and 
that nothing, I was told, had prevented its accomi)li8hment save the fac 
that each of them insisted upon being named President of the country 
which was to be formed. I could, however, assure him that neither you 
nor the President had any views on the matter which were unfriendly to 
Mexico. 

I took advantage of the occasion to again expose to him your views, 
as they are expressed in your disi)atches to me upon the subject, of the 
differences between Mexico and Guatemala; and I said to him that, 
while I felt sure there was nothing in your dispatch, of which I had fur- 
nished him a copy, which could be tortured into an expression of un- 
friendliness towards this country, I ho[)ed that nothing I had said in 
either of the interviews I had had with bim bad left any such impres- 
sion upon bis mind. He said, "Certainly not." I said to bim that the 
great interest tbe United States felt in tbe matter was that there should 
be peace between tbe Repuldics of this continent; that it was apparent 
to me that Mexico and Guatemala were occupying a hostile attitude to- 
wards each other, which might at any moment result in a war, and that 
this should, it seemed to me, be avoided if possible, and that it was not 
only possible to avoid it, but easy to do so. I repeated to him that a 
war between thie two countries would probably result in the conquest of 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 45 

Guatemala, but that such an event might bring forth bitter fruit; that I 
understood the policy of the Grovernment of the United States was to 
keep all the boundaries of the different Eepublics on the continent intact, 
and thatthe other Republics have as great an interest in the maintenance 
of this j)rinciple, as well as policy, as we have, and that we hoped Mex- 
ico agreed with us upon this point, and that she would not set the ex- 
ample to us of conquering the territory of her neighbor, who happened 
to be weaker than she is. 

I alluded to the suggestion contained in your dispatch ISTo. 142, June 
21, 1881, to the effect that Guatemala, if pushed to the wall, might at- 
tempt to sell her rights to some other nation. He asked me, "What na- 
tion — the United States'?" I answered, not the United States, but to 
some European nation. He laughed at the idea, but when I suggested 
to him that there might be more in this than he seemed to think there 
was, he said if such a thing were to happen Mexico would defend her- 
self, and that in case of need the United States would come to her as- 
sistance. To which I replied that I did not doubt that the people of 
the United States would rather join Mexico in a war to prevent any 
European nation from obtaining a foothold on her border than to see a 
foot of territory added to Mexico by conquest. (I may add that on one 
occasion my colleague from Guatemala suggested the same possibility 
with regard to selling the right to Socouusco to some power — the United 
States or to a European Government. I rei^lied that while I was not 
authorized to speak upon the subject I might, however, on my own ac- 
count, say that the United States did not want the territory, and that 
they would not be well pleased to see it attached to the possessions of 
a European power.) 

Sehor Mariscal said that he would not say that Mexico would alto- 
gether refuse the arbitration proposed,- but that there were some points 
of difference between the two countries which could not, under any cir- 
cumstances, be submitted to question. He said, for instance, that Guate- 
mala pretended to a title to the whole of the state of Chiapas, and 
that as Mexico held that territory first by conquest, and, secondly, by the 
expressed will of the inhabitants thereof, and had been in possession 
thereof for more than forty years, she would not now give it up or even 
admit that there was any question as to her title thereto. I at once 
replied that the first and most important question was that Mexico 
should acknowledge that there were differences between her and Guate- 
mala, and then that she should consent to submit those differences to 
an arbitrator. He asked me what would be the course to pursue in 
that direction. I replied that I was not authorized to make any formal 
proposition to him upon that point, but I thought I was able to indicate 
to him a mode of procedure which would accomplish the object in view 
and restore peace and quiet to the two countries. He asked me to do 
so, and I said, in substance : 

1. Mexico and Guatemala admit that there are differences between 
them. 

2. They agree with each other that these differences shall be submit- 
ted to arbitration. 

3. They agree that the President of the United States shall be the 
arbitrator 

4. The President of the United States accepts the position. 

5. The President of the United States then notifies Guatemala and 
Mexico that he is prepared to listen to their comi>laints against and 
demands upon each other. 

6. Guatemala prefers hers (indeed she would occupy, as it were, the 



46 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

position of plaintiff iu a suit, Mexico that of a defendant). In it she 
claims that she has been despoiled of her terri'^ory of Chiapas, and that 
it should be returned to her. 

7. Mexico answers and says that Chiapas belongs to her by conquest, 
by the vote of the inhabitants thereof, by an uninterrupted possession 
of nearly half a century, and that her title thereto cannot now be ques- 
tioned. But that there is a question as to the proper boundary between 
the two countries which they are willing to subnjit to arbitration. If 
these facts were as stated, there could be little danger in submitting 
them to the appreciation of any candid man, and that if the President 
of the United States were satisfied of their correctness he would prob - 
ably say to Guatemala that Chiapas was out of the question, and that 
the inquiry would have to be reduced to the question of boundary, and 
iu this regard what was in reality the southern boundary of Chiapas. 

8. That Guatemala would, of course, submit to his decision upon that 
point. 

9. That if the representatives of the two countries charged with the 
presentation of their case before him could not agree as to where the 
boundary should be, Mexico would appoint a commissioner, Guatemala 
one, and the President of the United States would appoint a third, 
whose duty it would be to run what they considered to be a true line 
which would show what, in their oi)inion, should be the boundary be- 
tween the two countries, any two of the commissioners to be competent 
to do the work in case the third one should fail to co-operate with them. 
That they might make unanimous report or a majority and minority re- 
port or a separate report. 

10. That when this report was made the President of the United 
States would notify the parties in interest and advise them that he 
would hear them upou the subject at such a time as would suit their 
convenience. 

11. That after having heard them the President would then deter- 
mine where the boundary line between the two countries should be 
located, and thus their trouble would be at an end. 

In the meanwhile, I said, there was to be no act of hostility on either 
side. Sefior Mariscal appeared greatly interested in the subject. In- 
deed I left him not without hope on my part if the suggestions I made 
him, as above set forth, were submitted as a proposition, they would be 
accepted. 

I had written nearly this much when I received a visit from Mr. Her- 
rera, the minister from Guatemala. He is exceedingly anxious upon 
this subject. He has, he tells me, received instructions from his Gov- 
ernment to endeavor to come to an understanding with Seuor Mariscal 
upou the subject of a commission which has been so long pending be- 
tween them. I said that while I had no advice to give him, inasmuch 
as he did not think he would accomplish anything in the way of the ap- 
pointing a commission, I should, were I in his place, wait until the 
question of submitting the differences between the two countries to ar- 
bitration should be finally decided before saying anything further upon 
the subject. He said he would. 

I then told him that I had had an interview with Seiior Mariscal on 
yesterday, and without telling him of the suggestions I had made, I 
told him how I thought the matter should be managed in substance, as 
I stated it to Sefior Mariscal. Mr. Herrera agreed with me. I then 
said to him that I fancied the great difliculty in the way was Chiapas, 
and I said to him, almost in these terms, " Suppose Mexico would agree 
to the arbitration upon the condition verbally assented to between the 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 47 

representatives of the two Governineuts, although uot expressed iu the 
written proposition, that upon the question of title to Chiapas, the Pres- 
ident of the United States was to decide that Chiapas belonged to 
Mexico, and therefore was not to be considered in the arbitration, would 
Guatemala consent thereto ? " He replied in the affirmative. He said 
that it was a question of pride with bis country ; that he did not believe 
a judgment could be rendered in her favor thereon, and still they could 
not, of their own accord, give it up, but that if the United States were 
to say that Guatemala had no title now to Chiapas, the decision would 
be acquiesced in. 

It occurs to me, therefore, that as the principal Objection on the part 
of Mexico to submit to an arbitration is Chiapas, if Guatemala would 
consent in advance that a judgment should be rendered against her 
upon that point, an agreement to submit the other dilierences which 
exist between the two countries to arbitration could be arrived at. 
I have, &c., 

P. H. MOEGAN. 



No. 29. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. 

[Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first session. ] 

No. 164.] Department op State, 

Washington, Angust 24, 1881 . 
Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatches numbered 
232, 240, and 247 of the 12th and 19th ultimo and 5th instant, respect- 
ively, in relation to the differences between the republics of Mexico 
and Guatemala, relative to their boundary lines. These dispatches are 
full and valuable, and have been read with interest. You will con- 
tinue to transmit promptly, as events progress, all information on the 
pending difi&culties between those two countries. 
1 am, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



No. 30. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Extract published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 259.] Legation of the United States, 

,Yvv^ Mexico, August 25, 1881. (Received September 9.) 

Ijy^ '^IR : * * * called on me on the 17th instant. He 

was going for a few days to Orizaba, and had come " to give me good- 
by." He asked me very abruptly whether Mexico had made any an- 
swer to the proffer of arbitration made by the President of the United 
States to act as arbitrator between Mexico and Guatemala. He in- 
formed me that I had received a dispatch from you upon the subject 5 
that a copy of that dispatch had been given to Senor Mariscal, and that 
the Mexican Government was furious. I asked him from whom he had 



48 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

obtained all this information. He shrugged his shoulders and replied 
that I could answer yes or no. To which I replied that it was not nec- 
essary I should answer at all. He endeavored to renew the conversa- 
tion, but I would not permit it. 

In the afternoon I called on Seiior Mariscal; I told him of the inter- 
view I had had with , and exi)ressed my surprise that he 

should be informed of any negotiations which might be pending between 

us. * * * He replied at once that must have obtained 

his information from Mr. Herrera. He however admitted that he had 
spoken to him upon the subject, but only in a general way. * * * 

In my oi)inion has been employed by to 

frighten Mr. Herrera, and he has succeeded in doing so, and he was sent 
to me for the purpose of ascertaining, if ijossible, to what lengths the 
United States would go in preserving the peace between the two coun- 
tries. 

The following day, ISth instant, Mr. Herrera called on me and informed 
me that the Guatemalan minister at Washington had written him that 
you had stated to him that in case Mexico refus(!d the proposed arbitra- 
tion and attempted to harm Guatemala, the United States would pro- 
tect her by force, if necessary. As I have before stated to you, I have 
on several occasions, when Mr. Herrera has spoken to me upon the ques- 
tion now pending between his country and Mexico, said to him that if I 
were in his i)lace I would keep away from Seiior Mariscal as much as 
possible until Mexico should decide positively whether to accei)t the 
mediation of the United States or not. He always replied that he 
"would. 

On the evening of the 19th iustantMr. Herrera called at my residence. 
He had just had an interview with Sefior Mariscal. He told me that 
Senor Mariscal had said to him that it was impossible to settle their dis- 
putes by arbitration ; that Guatenmla claimed the whole of Chiai)as, and 
that even if he, Senor Mariscal, and the President were willing to give 
it up (which they were not), they would not be permitted to do so ; that 
the only way the matter could be settled was by war; that the applica- 
tion of Guatemala to the United States for their intervention was an 
insult; that Mexico would not accept it, even if her refusal should re- 
sult in a war with that country. At the same time he said Mr. Herrera 
need not fancy that such an event was at all probable, inasmuch as the 
United States had too great an interest in Mexico to jeopardize them 
by taking up Guatemala's defense, where she has no inteiest. 

Mr. Herrera then said that he ai)preciated the difficulty which pre- 
sented itself to Mexico submitting the questions at issue to an arbitra- 
tion, and he inquired of Sefior Mariscal whether it would not be possible 
for them to arrive at an understanding upon a different basis, viz, that 
Guatemala should cede all her claim to Chiapas and Soconusco, upon 
Mexico i)aying an indemnity to Guatemala therefor. 

Sefior Mariscal replied, after some reflection, that that might be pos- 
sible, although he would give no positive answer; but he said arbitra- 
tion was not to be discussed, repeating that he preferred war with the 
United States to that. 

In my opinion Mr. Herrera made a mistake when he sought an inter- 
view with Senor Mariscal, and he made a greater one when he allowed 
himself to make the above projwsition. Sefior Mariscal, when he told 
him his suggestions might be entertained, said so only that negotiations 
might be resumed between them. Mexico has no money with which to 
purchase anything. If she had, she would not purchase territory from 
Guatemala. When she wants it, she will take it ; and I submit to your 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 49 

better judgment whether, if the negotiations upon this subject are to 
be continued, Mr. Herrera should not be advised to allow them to take 
their course; for you will, I think, readily perceive that if I make a 
proposition to the effect that the differences between the two countries 
be submitted to arbitration, and he makes a proposition to sell Guate- 
mala's rights, we are playing at cross-purposes. 

In my dispatch No. 253 (August 11, 1881) I expressed the hope that 
the Mexican Government would accept a proposition for mediation if 
made something in the form of the one I suggested. It is apparent 
that if they can resume direct negotiations with Guatemala, they will 
do so. It is very certain that Senor Mariscal's conversation with Mr. 
Herrera (as the latter reported it) was in tone and matter very differ- 
ent from the one held with me. It would indicate that Senor Mariscal 
had changed his mind since our interview, or that he had been in- 
structed differently, aud tend to confirm the suggestions of , 

that Mexico was "very angry," aud gives good ground to fear that if 
the United States should now retire from the negotiation and leave 
Guatemala to herself, there will soon be nothing left of that already 
very small Republic. 
I am, &IC., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



No. 31. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 
[Extract published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 273.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, September 22, 1881. (Received October 7.) 

Sir: On yesterday I sent you a telegram, as follows: 

Mexico, September 20, 1881. 
Secretary Blaine, 

Washington : 
The President's annual message is considered threatening towards Guatemala. It 
announces that Mexican troops have arrived at the frontier State, and that others will 
soon jo lu them. 

Confi^rmatory of the threatening character of the message, I inclose 
an editorial taken from the Monitor Republicano of the 20th instant, 
and a translation of that portion thereof which relates to the subject 
before us, from which you will observe that the editor is of the opinion 
that the President's words give reason to believe that a declaration of 
war is imminent. 

Referring now to your dispatch No. 164, August 24, 1881, in which 
I am instructed to continue to transmit promptly, as events progress, 
all information on the pending difficulties between those two countries, 
I have to report that from the date of my dispatch No. 259, August 25,, 
1881, up to last evening I have not had any conversation whatever 
with Seiior Herrera, the Guatemalan minister — indeed in that interval I 
had seen him but once, and that was at a ball which he gave on the 15th 
instant, in commemoration of the anniversary of his country's inde- 
pendence. I had declined his invitation on account of the President's 
illness. At his earnest instance, however, and as the news had reached 
here that the President had been sitting up, and had gone to Long 
H. Ex. 154 4 



50 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Branch, I went to the ball for a few moments. It is well, perhaps, that 
I did so, as my absence might have been misinterpreted. 

Neither had I had any conversation with Seiior Mariscal upon the 
subject nntil yesterday. Although I had seen him several times in the 
meanwhile, he carefully abstained from alluding to it. 

Yesterday evening, 21st instant, however, Mr. Herrera called on me. 
He directed my attention to the President's message, and particularly 
to that portion of it which refers to Guatemala, and which was the sub- 
ject of niy telegi am. He appeared to be quite concerned about it. He 
informed me that Seiior Mariscal had at his (Mr. Herrera's) house, on 
the night of the loth, spoken with several persons upon the dififlculties 
which were pending between Mexico and Guatemala; that the Presi- 
dent of the United States had proffered his services as mediator between 
them; that the proffer had been declined. (One of the guests of Mr. 
Herrera had told me the same thing onlj^ a short while before.) I 
was careful not to say anything beyond assuring Mr. Herrera that the 
United States would view with concernment any trouble between the 
two countries, and that they would use every amicable means to pre- 
vent it. I did not, however, deem it imprudent to mention to him 
that I had informed you of the message by telegraph. Later in the 
evening I received Seiior Mariscal's visit. He came in while the 
minister from Germany was with me. The German minister was speak- 
ing to me upon the subject of the pending difficulties between Mexico 
and Guatemala and the proposed intervention of the United States, 
and had stated that Mexico was very angry thereat, when Seiior Ma- 
riscal came in, to whom 1 told the subject of the pending conversation. 

The German minister soon left, and after a few moments' conversa- 
tion upon other subjects, Sefior Mariscal said, "And so you were speak- 
ing of the Guatemala question when I came in?" I said, "Yes." He 
asked me whether I had seen the President's message. I replied that 
I bad read that "Napoleonic" document. He in(iuired of me why I 
characterized it thus. 1 replied that because of its warlike i one, as well 
as its manner, reminded one of the speeches which that Emperor was 
in the habit of delivering, or causing to be delivered, from the throne, 
when he considered himself in some sort the master of Europe. He asked 
me if I really thought it was so. I answered, "To such an extent that 
I had said to the minister from Guatemala, not long before he came in, 
who had spoken to me upon the subject, that it would, perhaps, have 
been better if he had kept the money which his ball had cost to pur- 
chase powder with." Senor Mariscal then repeated a great deal of 
what he had said to me in our former interviews concerning the griev- 
ances which Mexico had against Guatemala, adding that he proposed 
to send to Congress, with his department report, a copy of your dis- 
patch No. 138, the 16th June, 1881, as well as his memorandum to me 
in reply thereto. 

Alluding to the tentative of your dispatch, I said to him that when 
he can)e in I was exjdaining, in reply to a remark of the German min- 
ister that it was understood that the President of the United States 
had offeuMl his mediation, and that he had proposed to take up the ques- 
tion as to whether Socouusco and Chiapas belonged of right to Mexico, 
which had angered the Mexican Government and people, that the Pres- 
ident of the United States had not, through me at least, made any such 
proposition. 1 then took occasion to call Sefior Mariscal's attention to 
the fact that there was not a press in Mexico (except the Official Jour- 
nal) which did not contain, almost every day, something offensive to the 
people of the United States, a circumstance which, I told him, I re- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 51 

gretted very much, as it had a tendency to engender a bad state of feel- 
ing on both sides of the line, and that it was, I thought, particularly to 
be regretted in view of the friendly and sympathetic tone of the assur- 
ances contained in those of your dispatches, which, under instructions, 
I had read to him. I cited to him particularly the Nacional, a paper 
which was owned and published,! had been informed, by a nephew of 
the minister of Hacienda (Secretary of the Treasury). SeQor Mariscal 
was obliged to admit, with some reservation, the truth of my observa- 
tions, and said, in regard to the Nacional, that he would take occasion 
to speak to the editor and caution him upon the subject. 

I particularly directed his attention to the warnings which were daily 
uttered against the grantings of concessions, &c., to Americans, and 
the baneful influences which, it was said, American enterprise would ex- 
ercise upon Mexican interests, material and political, threatening as it 
did the national existence. In the same connection, I mentioned as an 
instance of these warnings the articles which were constantly appear- 
ing in the daily papers upon the subject of the branch of the Franco- 
Egyptian Bank here to the effect that the assent of Congress to the 
contract, celebrated between the President and the directors thereof, 
should be given upon the ground that it would do a great deal toward 
counterbalancing American commercial influence in the country, and I 
inquired of him how it wns possible that the expenditure of, I might 
say, hundreds of millions of American money in Mexico, giving', as it 
did, employment to many thousands of its citizens, could be any detri- 
ment to the country. Jn respect of the Franco-Egyptian Bank, I called 
his attention to the suggestion which I had made to him upon the sub- 
ject, to the effect that 1 believed if the Government of Mexico desired 
to establish a bank here one could be organized with American capital 
upon the basis of our own national banks ; and I asked him which 
should be considered the safer institution, the one whose circulation was 
secured by United States bonds, or one whose circulation had practi- 
cally no security; the one whose circulation did not exceed the amount 
of the security therefor, or the one whose circulation exceeded by three 
to one the amount of its nominal coin deposit; the one which would 
bring $20,000,000 of bonds of the United States — more than equivalent 
to that sum in gold — into the country, or the one which would be en- 
abled to take at least 160,000,000 in coin out of it. 

******* 

Going back to the Guatemala question I stated that the President of 
the United States when he consented to have it suggested to Mexico 
that he would act as arbitrator between the two countries, had been act- 
uated by the purest feelings of friendship for both nations, and in the 
interest of a public peace which, once disturbed, might result in conse- 
quences little dreamed of by either party. Laughingly, I said that if 
the Mexican appetite for conquest had been excited, it was probably for- 
tunate for us that Guatemala, and not Texas, was the meat it craved. 

This is the substance of what occurred, although I do not pretend 
that the points touched upon are given chronologically. 

Seizor Mariscal reiterated that if there should be a war with Guate- 
mala, it would be Guatemala's fault. He admitted that the course 
pursued by the United States was friendly in its character, although 
he persisted in saying the facts of the case had been misrepresented 
by Guatemala to you. 

We parted on the best of terms, but he left me more than ever con- 
vinced that nothing would prevent a war between the two countries 
unless a positive position was taken by the United States, and I ven- 



52 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

ture to suggest that unless the Gov^erninent is prepared to announce 
to the Mexican Government that it will actively, if necessary, preserve 
the peace, it would be the part of wisdom on our side to leave the 
matter where it is. Negotiations on the subject will not benefit Guate- 
mala, and you may depend upon it that what we have already done in 
this direction has not tended to the increasing of the cordial relations 
which I know it is so much your desire to cultivate with this nation. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure in No. 273 — Translation.— From Monitor Republicano of September 20, 1881.] 

Anotlier dark passage in the President's message is the one in which he refers to the 
diplomatic relations between Mexico and the Republic of Guatemala. 

These are his words: 

" With regard to Guatemala, it is painful to have to say that an equally favorable 
disposition is not observed in the course of the government of that country ; on the 
contrary, there appears to be a certain interest revealed on its part in preserving 
indefinitely the same vagueness and uncertainty in its relations with Mexico as re- 
gards the international boundaries between the two countries. The Executive, not- 
withstanding, will make every effort to clear up a .situation which is pregnant with 
evil for our conntryas well as for Guatemala. If in pursuing these efforts the inter- 
vention of Congress should become necessary, I shall not fail to ask for it in proper 
season." 

The words with which the President treats the Guatemala question are terrible ; 
they indicate that certain of our relations with that republic are very tightly draw^n, 
and, in truth, unless the official documents and acts of the Government ot Guatemala 
show, as the President says they do, a special desire on its part to continue in its 
uncertain attitude towards this nation, it may be said that the sentence above quoted 
from General Gonzalez's message is a bold one. 

It is a clear and explicit accusation against the Government of Guatemala, expressed 
in very harsh terms for a document such as a presidential message. 

The public in general were not aware that matters had proceeded so far between the 
Mexican and Guatemalan Governments, and all methods of conciliation must have 
been very nearly exhausted when the chief of the nation speaks in such terms as these 
in the face of the nation to Congress. 

The answer of the president of the chamber to the i)aragraph which we have cop- 
ied upon the Guataniala question indicates in a greater degree the hostile feelings 
Avhich exist between the two Governments. He said: 

"It is with still greater pain that the Congress of the Union has learned that the 
Government of Guatemala has not manifested a disposition similar to that evinced 
by I he United States to adjust its relations with our country, appearing, as it tloes, 
to wish to maintain in its present unct-rtaiuty the question of our national boundary. 

" The members of both chambers hope that if, in truth, the cause of the attitude of 
the Government is the want of a recognized boundary between the two countries, this 
state of affairs will cease so soon as the scientific commission, named to this end by 
the Mexican Government, will have completed its labors, and that an amicable con- 
vention may end a question which has betn so much debated, and which may result, 
if prolonged, in great evils to fraternal nations, which should be avoided. 

Tu tlie meanwhile, the representatives of the nation approve of the efforts which 
he Executive has made to obtain an honorable solution of so delicate a question, 
and it may rest assured that in this matter, as well as in the maintenance of the dig- 
nity and lights of the rejiublic against all comers, it will have the support of the 
legislative ])ower." 

In our opinion this is a grave and delicate question ; it is proper under all circum- 
stances to guard and defend everything required by tlie national honor ; it is proper, 
also, to bring to an end this question of boundary which has for such a length of time 
agitated the two countries, but this should be done with the circumspection and pru- 
dence which a matter of such a nature demau<ls. 

The words of the President to the chamber have made us believe that we were near 
to a declaration of war ; that is to say, that methods of conciliatiou had been ex- 
hausted. 

When diplomatic reserve shall permit, the republic will have the right to know 
■what has taken place, for that which has been done in this direction looks towards 
the breaking up of the friendly relations between the two nations who have always 
traveled together in the best harmony. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 53 

We have no data upon which to express an opinion upon this grave emergency. 
We follow day by day the current of political events, and without a doubt, notwith- 
standing something has transpired with reference to this matter, we were far from 
believing that there was a threatened difficulty between Mexico and Guatemala ; for 
the same reason, without more information upon the subject than we have gathered 
from the few words of the President, we can neither judge nor venture an opinion ; 
we must wait for events ; we must wait also for some word which the Diario Olicial 
may think proper to say to throw some light upon this question, which is the most 
important one as regards our diplomatic I'elations. 



No. 32. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 287.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, October 6, 1881. (Eeceived October 20.) 

Sir: I had a visit this morning from Mr. Herrera,the Guatemalan min- 
ister. He informed me that on the 4th instant he had had an interview 
with Senor Mariscal. I inquired of him with what purpose he had called 
on the secretary for foreign affairs f He replied that he had been in- 
structed so to do by his Government, to ask the meaning of the large 
armed force which Mexico was concentrating upon the Guatemalan fron- 
tier. He informed me that Seiior Mariscal had replied that there were 
some troops in that vicinity, and that others were on their waj' there; 
that their object was to protect the Mexican frontier from invasion, and 
to recover possession of the Mexican territory which Guatemala had 
taken some months ago. The number of Mexican troops, he said, 
amounted to about three thousand. Mr. Herrera says there are about 
4,000. 

I inquired of Mr. Herrera whether Guatemala had any troops in the 
neighborhood of the district which Senor Mariscal said it was the inten- 
tion of Mexico to take possession of. He said there were. 

I asked, "If the Mexican troops attempt to take possession of the ter- 
ritory in question will the Guatemalan troops resist?" He replied that 
they certainly would. 

Mr. Herrera spoke long and earnestly about the differences between 
the two countries, and of his last interview wiih Senor Mariscal. The 
first was only a repetition of what I have heretofore rejjorted to you, 
and of the last I have given you the substance. 

I have seen Senor Mariscal several times since my last dispatch to 
you upon this subject, but he has never alluded to it. His official report 
thereon will soon be published. 

I understand that he pioposes to publish the copy of your dispatch 
to me. No. 138, a copy of which, under your direction, I left with him, 
as well as his reply thereto. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



54 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Ko. 33. 
Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 
[Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first scission.] 

No. 280.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, October 2(», 1881. (Received November 4.) 

Sir: Referring to my dispatches relating to the differences between 
Mexico and Guatemala, I inclose herewith an article taken from the 
Diario Oficial of the 15th October, to which is attached an extract from 
Seuor Mariscal's report to Congress upon the affairs of his department; 
a translation thereof 1 also inclose. 

1 have nothing to add to what I have already written upon this sub- 
ject. 

I have not considered it necessary to inclose a translation of your 
dispatch ISro.138, ICth June, 1881 — published in the Diario, nor the "mem- 
oranda" of Seiior Mariscal, the latter having formed an inclosure in my 
dispatch No. 247. 25th August, 1881. 

I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure in No. 289.— Tianslation.— From the Diario Oticial, October 15, 1881.] 
MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Some of the city papers deemed the words spoken by the President of this republic 
in his message to the Congress of the Union too bold, considering the conduct observed 
by the Guatemalan Government in its international relations with this country on 
account of the iinpe-nding boundary question. We then requested those organs of the 
national press to defer their judgment rehitive to the terms in which the President 
had expressed himself on that solemn occasion until the course of events should have 
thrown enough light on the subject to justify the conduct of the Federal Executive. 
The opportunity we desired has presented itself. The secretary of foreign affairs 
has jnsi published a memorandum, which, in compliance wiih the constitutioual pre- 
cepts, was sent by him to the Congress of the Union. Two things worthy of note are 
found in this important document. One is the dignified line of conduct maintained 
by Mr. Mariscal in the various questions which have arisen about the events on the 
northern frontier; a line of conduct which has been censured by some, probably be- 
cause it is not understood. The other is a statement which shows clearly what is 
going on between Mexico and Guatemala, arising from the want of loyalty shown by 
the Government of the latter country. 

In thus expressing oui selves, we are authorized by the contents of the memorandum 
issutd by the secretary of foreign affairs of Mexico. The extracts which we will pub- 
lish from this document will show the Mexicans that whilst the President of Guate- 
mala refuses to appoint a body of engineers to join with ours in defining the boundary 
line between the two republics, he solicits the intervention of the United States, 
thus calumniating (we can use no other word) Mexico's good name and equity. What 
preceiles, our readers will find in the following extracts : 

Guatemala.— Seuor D. Ramon Uriarte, who was for five years envoy extraordinary 
and minister plenipotentiary for the republics of Guatemala, Salvador, and Honduras, 
having retired, Seuor D. De'lfino Sanchez was named in his place, ami was received 
in public audience on the 7th of June, la79. By leave of absence Seuor Sanchez re- 
♦iurned to his country, leaving as charg6 d'affaires ad interim Senor D. Manuel Garcia 
Granados, who on tlie 17th of December of the same year announced that his mission 
ceased. Senor Sic D. Manuel Herrera having arrived in this capital as envoy extra- 
ordinary and minister ])lenipotentiary for Guatemala, Senor Herrera was received by 
the President of this republic, with the customary ceremony, on the2'2d of December, 
1879. He was afterwards received as minister for Salvador and Honduras. 

Senor D. Francisco Diaz Covarrubias, who represented Mexico in Central America 
in the character of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, having sent in 
his resignation on the 18th of February, Senor D. Manuel Diaz Mimiaga remained at 
the head of the legation as charge d'affaires ad interim, and held this post until the 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMAl.A. 55 

16th of March, 1881. On this date the Govenimeut of Guatemala received in solerau 
audience Senor General D. Francisco Loaeza as envoy extraordinary and minister 
plenipotentiary of Mexico. Senor Loaeza has the same post in the other Govern- 
ments of Central America. 

The time fixed for the carrying on of the works in charge of the mixed committee 
for exploring the boundary line between Guatemala and Mexico, in the convention of 
the 7th of December, 1877, not being sufficient, negotiations were established with 
the Governtnent of that Republic, by means of their representive in Mexico, a nego- 
tiation prolonging the given time. The result was that on the 3d of March, 1879, a 
new agreement was signed which exteoded the time fixed for the working out of the 
two sections into which the line was divided. In conformity with this agreement the 
ratifications made were formally accepted, and the exploration of the first section 
ought to be terminated on the last day of December, 1879, and that of the second sec- 
tion in a term of six months, which should commence a month after the completion 
of the first. The said term having elapsed without the mixed committee having fin- 
ished the work of the first section, the purposes of the treaty legally ceased. The 
Government of Guatemala, taking advantage of this circumstance, then withdrew 
its committee without any previous notice as is usual in similar cases. Notwithstand- 
ing this the Mexican committee continues its work on the nortliern frontier. 

In order not to lose the result of the works already finished, and not lo be without 
certain data for the future in the definite settlement of boundaries which, if not agreed 
upon, must prove disastrous, if we consider the immediate necessity of settling aques- 
tion which has been discussed for the last fifty years, the Mexican Government, by 
means of its representative in Central America, proposed that a new convention 
should be made, renewing former ones, and introducing such reformations which ex- 
perience and careful study seem to render indispensable. General Loaeza presented 
to the Guatemalan Government the sketch of the new convention, with the clauses 
and amendments alluded to, which were accepted by the President of that Republic 
in a conference held with our minister; notwithstanding this acceptance, and the 
efforts made by the Mexican Government to conclude this affair soon, it has been 
found impossible, so far, to carry out the treaty. 

The Mexican territory having suffered several invasions from Guatemala, it is my 
duty to give information concerning them, with their various incidents. 

Towards the end of October of 1878, a party of ten men belonging to the Guatema- 
lan Army, under the command of an officer named Marg^rito Barrios, made an incur- 
sion on the Mexican territory, near Tonintana, carrying off eight men bound, besides 
committing several other depredations. 

On the 17th of December, 1879, our town, known by the name of TuxMa Chioo, suf- 
fered an attack from a band of thirty-five men, proceeding from Guatemala, and 
headed by some Mexicans who had emigrated to that country, where they conspired 
against the peace of Mexico. 

In September of 1880 a new party of filibustars, composed of Mexicans (deserters) 
and several Central Americans, forty in all, and proceeding from Guatemala, came 
down upon Tuxla Chico again. In this assault the invaders, besides being armed 
with rifles and pistols, carried a box containing inflammable cartridges which might 
destroy, not only the above-mentioned town, where they committed all sorts of out- 
rages, but also a smaller one, named Mazatlan, to which they afterwards departed. 
At two leagues distance from this place they were overtaken ,by a body of Mexican 
cavalry, which routed them, killing one and taking another prisoner, and carrying 
off their arms, horses, and case of cartridges. 

In December of the same year a fresh and more serious incursion took place, com- 
posed of a body of two hundred men from Guatemala, headed by the political chief of 
San Marcos, a department of that Republic. On the 13th and 14th a party of these 
destroyed the landmark of Pinabete, in order to place it near Cailco Viejo, several 
leagues on this side of our territory. A hundred men commanded by Francisco Rodas, 
who is one of those most interested in appropriating the Mexican territory on that 
side, advanced at the points named Las Chicharras and Tonintana, placed a new sig- 
nal at the place named San Antonio. To carry out these operations, the invaders took 
advantage of there being no Mexican trooj)8 there to impede them, and staid two days 
on the Mexican frontier, where they hoisted the flag of Guatemala. Agaiustthese suc- 
cessive invasions, each one assuming a graver character, the Executive has protested 
energetically, presenting the corresponding reclamatitms, giving the Guatemalan Gov- 
ernment to understand that acts of this nature not only violate the treaty of the 7th 
of December, 1877, whilst it was in force, and of international rights in all times, but 
form offenses to Mexico made directly by Guatemalan officers or functionaries; offenses 
for whose reparation the Mexican Government requires of that of Guatemala not only 
the punishment of the guilty parties, but the satisfaction to which Mexico has an un- 
questionable right. The reclamations to which I refer have brought about an ex- 
change of letters the issue of which is still undecided. On this point, as on the others 



56 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

concerning the present memoir, I refer for details to the diplomatic correspondenee 
"which is now in press. 

The Executive gives to these occurrences the full and serious importance they pos- 
sess, hecausp of the duty incunilient on it to uphold the territorial rights of Mexico 
and to defend the national dignity, and is therefore resolved to n]al<e the greatest ef- 
forts to right these evils and avoid tbeir repetition for the future. One of the meas- 
ures taken has been to send a competent Ibrce to the state of Chiapas, who have 
orders to guard the frontier, impede any fresh attempt at invasion, and not allow the 
removal of any landmarks, but replace those so boldly withdrawn. 

The Government of Guatemala has addressed itself in a formal manner to the Presi- 
dent of the United States, begging his mediation to put an end to the difficulties be- 
tween the two countries. In accordance with this petition the Government at Wash- 
ington has sent instructions to its representative, Mr. Morgan, to treat concerning 
the atliiir. In fiiltilnient of this, the United States minister called on the secretary^ 
for foreign affairs, and after fully explaining the frien<lly spirit of his Government 
towards Mexico, he went on to show that it did not wish to interpose its good offices 
between Mexico and Guatemala Iti an officious manner, nor with the pretension of 
meddling with the internal administration or the mutual relations existing between 
the two countries, but that it was only moved by the desire that peace and harmony 
should reign l)etween two neighboring sister nations. He added that what he had 
just said iu his Government's iianie would be found better expressed in the note on 
this subject addressed to him by Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State; a note which he then 
read and offered a copy, which Avas sent on the follovviug day. 

Mr. Morgan co"ucluded by saying that if the Mexican Government accepted the me- 
dium of arbitration to settle the question of boundaries with Guatemala, he believed 
the Government of the United States would consent to be arbiter; assuring that in 
such case the decision it would pronounce wou]<l be most impartial, as it would have 
no other interest/ but that of re-establishing harmony and good understanding be- 
tween Mexico and her southern neighbor. 

The undersigned answered Mr. Moriian that he was convinced that the spirit guid- 
ing the Government of the United States was friendly and loyal in the step it was 
now taking. He made some important rectifications in recent historical acts stated 
in the Secretary of State's memoir, and showed that in the pretensions of Guatemala, 
as to the limits, there was one part about which Mexico would uot and could not ad- 
mit of a discussion, namely :. That Chiapas, including Soconusco, belongs to Guate- 
mala ; Mexico having been in possession of those districts for \ears, and which tbrm 
one of the States of the Mexican Union. It is clear that neither the dignity of the 
nation nor its political constitution can allow it to be questioned nor to submit to ar- 
bitration whether one of its integral parts lielongsto it or not. The question between 
the two countries resolves itself in defining the borders of the state of Chiapas and 
Guatemala, which would then form the international boundaries. The discussion of 
this question wqs suspended in view of the unavoidable necessity of surveying the 
debated ground, which was being done by means of the convention between both 
governments, and which expired without the survey having been completed. Guate- 
mala has consented to the renewal of the convention in order to finish the said exam- 
ination, without which it seems impossible to come to an understanding as to the 
ground, or its divisions, or the arbiter which will eventually be named to settle the 
differences. 

After making some observations which he judged ojiportune, as to the attitude of 
the Government of Mexico and that of Guatemala, he concluded by assuring Mr. Mor- 
gan that the good offices ot his Governmeut were fully appreciated by that of Mexico, 
but it not being possible yet eveu to sa\ if this question, at least iu the part indicated, 
would need arbitration, Mexico reserved to herself the determination of admitting it 
or uot in the future. In res]>ect to the points in which it might be necessary, if it were 
not for these motives, it would give the Government, great ]»leasure in accepting the 
mediation of the United States as arbiter to settle the differences with Guatemala, if 
it were uot formally proposed, as hitherto it has not; as the Government has the great- 
est confidence iu the mutual friend of the two countries. When the conference termi- 
nated the undersigned promised to make a memorandum comprising the above, with 
some other explanations about the boundary question and about the contents of the 
note whicli Mr. Morgan had read. 

The copies of the note referred to and the said memorandum are adjoined to the 
present memoir, uuxrked with the uninliers five and six. 

In this important dispatch, a copy of which was sent to the ministry that same day, 
our attention is called by the strong desire to ascribe friendly motives to the following 
paragraph : 

"The events yet fresh in the memory of the present Mexican generation, although 
they hajjpened whilst the United States was sufiering with a civil war, the latter 
country lent its moral and material su[)])ort iu annihilating the danger of a foreign 
empire which threatened the life of the Mexican Republic; this in itself is a satisfac- 



BOUNDAKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 57 

tory proof of the purity and disinterested feelings of the United States towards her 
republican sisters on this continent." 

In fact, Mexico will never be able to forget what the present generation of Mexicans 
then witnessed, referred to by the Hon. Mr. Blaiue, namely, that the United States 
lent its generous moral support when Mexico was invaded by a foreign foe; her people 
were tighting against a European monarch, alone aud without fi)reign resources. 
Neither will Mexico forget that if the United States had not been in the midst of a 
terrible civil war she would have done something more besides lending her moral 
aid, and the war might have been concluded some years sooner. 

In the same note it is stated that the forces of the Emperor Itnrbide having occupied 
a great part of the Central American territory, abandoned all this territory excepting 
Soconusco aud Chiapas, and Mexico, being constituted a Republic, still claimed a right 
to what she considered the imperial conquests. In this there are several historical 
errors, and one of these especially, as before stated, founded on prejudiced information, 
orthe history of Mexico is unfortunately little known. Even during the empire of Itnr- 
bide it was not conquest, but the voluntary wiwh of the districts of Chiapas and Soco- 
nusco that determined their annexation to Mexico, as it also decided the annexation 
of all the provinces in Central America excepting Salvador. Previously to this the 
provinces separated from Mexico and joined Guatemala in forming a Republic, except- 
ing Soconusco and Chiajias, which Mexico converted into a republic, reiterated their 
intentions to remain iucorjiorated with this latter nation. It not being possible to give 
here a detailed history of the events, suffice it to say "ihat with the ever-recurring 
pretensions of Guatemala, it has caused several serious and well-written papers to be 
publislied, proving the right that Mexico has to that portion of her present territory, 
founding it not only on the conquest, but on the voluntary surrendering of these 
districts. Notably amongst the writers of these papers are Senor D. Manuel Larrainzar 
and Senor D. Matias Romero, men well known to haveathorongh knowledge of affairs 
relative to Chiapus and Soconusco, the first being a native of the former State, and the 
second having li v< d inSoconu«co, where he was obliged to abandon his pro])erty, ruined 
by GuatenialHU invaders. Without alluding to the above-mentioned publications it will 
be leadily understood how inexact are the statements in regard to Mexico's right to 
these districts which form a State of the Unioi*!, merely by reading the comprehensive 
article written by Senor Lafragua (while minister of foreign aifairs) to the Guate- 
malan miiiistrr in this capital, dated 9th of October, lH7o. This note, which so clearly 
points out Mexico's unquestionable right to Soconusco aud Chiapas by a possession 
respectively of thirty aud fifty years, aud which ought to have provoked a serious 
discussion when first issued, is at the present time unanswered, as the Government of 
Guatenuila leaves everything it finds a dilSculty in answering. The most brief sum- 
mary of that comprehensive note will show that Mexico is not entitled by conquest to 
those districts, as Mr. Blaine evidently believes, thus calumniating this republic. 
The following is found at the end of the document to which we allude. 

"Making asuumiary of what has been said in the present note, the following points 
are proved : 1st. Chiapas was a province exactly like the others forming the genera- 
caplainship of Guatemala; 2d. ChiaiJas on the 3d of September, 1821, voluntarily sepa- 
rated itself from Guatemala and united itself to Mexico ; 3d. i hiapas on the 12th of 
September, 1824, again united itself to the United States of Mexico by a free vote of 
the majority of its inhabitants (before it was proved that the voting was done with- 
out any Mexican force whatever, and that the majority was greatly in favor of Mex- 
ico) ; 4th. Soconusco in 1821 was a party of the administration of Chiapas, and as such 
united itself to the empire; 5th. Soconusco in 1821 was a party of the administration 
of Chiapas, and voted freely for the aggregation to Mexico on the 3d May ; 6th. The 
act passed on the 24th of July, 1824, in Tapachula, was revolutionary and illegal ; 7th. 
Central America acknowledged the supreme council of Chiapas aud said she would 
respect its resolutions," &c. 

Without copying the whole of the summary, enough has been said to convince any- 
body that Mexico does not found her primitive rights by conquest to Chiapas and 
Soconusco. 

As to recent events there are four complaints against Mexico, which the Govern- 
ment of Guatemala has stated to that of the United States. 

1st. That the diplomatic efforts made to come to an understanding with Mexico 
have been unsuccessful : 

2d. That there is a Guatemalan examining committee sent to study the ground, 
and the said committee has been imprisoned by the Mexican authorities ; 

3d. That the agents of Guatemala, charged with making a census of the territory 
in question, have been treated in like manner ; and, 

4th. That the Government of Mexico has invaded cautiously, but constantly, the 
boundary domain which has until the present time belonged to Guatemala; substi- 
tuting the local authorities which were working, by Mexicans, thus extending the 
area of the territory now disputed. 



58 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUTAEM\LA 

We will answer these statements in their order : 

I. The diplomatic efforts made to arrange the boundaries with Guatemala have been 
made exclusively by Mexico. In 1832 the Mexican Government sent to Guatemala, 
as envoy and minister plenipotentiary, Seuor D. Manuel Diaz de Boiiilla, and in 1853 
Senor D. Juan N. dePereda, in the same character, bub without obtainiui^ any result. 
Senor Pereda remained in Guatemala unil 18.5H. In the various c nferences which 
he had with Senor D. Manuel Pavon, minister of foreign affairs of that republic, this 
gentleman would never consent to a treaty of boundaries, and said that Guatemala 
had resolved in the negotiations with Mexico only to acknowledge the statu quo of the 
boundaries and frontiers of both countries. 

As the Government of Guatemala would not treat about the boundaries, Senor 
Pereda had to give up his othcial relations with it, also because in a disagreeable and 
offensive manner that Government refused to internate the various emigrants proceed- 
ing from Mexico, who were conspiring against the peace of this republic. 

The question of boundaries was not discussed until October of 1873, when Senor 
Lafragua, minister of foreign affairs, directed to Senor Garcia Granados, charg6 
d'affaires in Guatemala, informing him of the necessity of settling the subject referred 
to ; in effect he invited the Government of the said republic to open negotiations with 
this capital. 

The new minister of Guatemala, Senor Uriarte, answered at the end of some months, 
in July, 1874, and after Senor Lafragua had asked him if the invitation would be 
accepted, as he was provided with the full corresponding power to enter into negotia- 
tions. 

Ou the 21st of August Senor Uriarte presented a memorandum to serve as a basis 
for the discussion. After various conferences. Senor Lafragua answered the memo- 
randum in the note dated October 9, 1875, to which was adjoined a project of bound- 
aries between the two republics. This important note, which has before been men- 
tioned, has, as we have said, remained unanswered. 

In July, 1877, negotiations were resumed by Senor Vallarta, as minister plenipoten- 
tiary of Mexico, and Seiior Uriarte, minister of Guatemala. The result was the con- 
vention of the 7th of December of the same year. 

II. The note of the Hou. Mr. Blaine refers to this convention ; by it, as we have 
before stated, a mixed committee of Mexican and Guatemalan engineers was formed, 
charged with the surveying and making of plans, fixing astronomically some locali- 
ties, in order to clear up the data on this subject, the discussion about boundaries to 
be afterwards continued by the two republics. 

In the Article X it was stipulated that during the suspension ot negotiations about 
boundaries the contracting parties would religiously respect the actual possessions, 
not provoking any question relative to borders, and preventing any act of hostility 
on the part of the authorities and citizens of either republic. 

The commissioners met at Tapachula and commenced work ou the 18th of Novem- 
ber, 1878. 

On the 26th of January, 1880, three engiiuiers of the Guatemala commission pre- 
sented themselves in the neighborhood of Cuilco Viejo, a village in Soconnsco, accom- 
panied by several Indians, and planted a cross there The local authorities believed 
the object of this operation was to remove the landmark of Pinabete, accepted as 
marking the boundary line between the tvvorei)ublics, and situate eight leagues more 
to the north, as had already been done some years before by some people of Tacani, 
a place belonging to Guatemala. In this belief the above-mentioned engineers were 
interrogated, and these not giving a 8atisfa(^tory account of their proceedings, nor 
preseming any document to prove their official character, they were arrested and 
sent off to Tapachula by the said authorities. Here they were at once set at liberty 
by the political chief, who amply apologized to them. This is the only case Guate- 
mala can cite of engineers being imprisoned, and on this point she seemed to be fully 
satisfied. The Mexican Government thought the local authorities had made a false 
step in the matter. However, subsequent events prove that the Goverument of Gua- 
temala really wished on that occasion to alter the landmarks. 

III. A similar reason was the cause of the apprehension of the Guatemalan agents 
alluded to. In December, 1880, a committee, formed of the judge of Tacauiiand four 
other persons, went to draw up a census of the inhabitiints of several farms, which 
though a league from th'- Mexican town of Cuilco Viejo, form a part of the same. This 
commission did not go to make a census in a (lebated country, but rather to exercise 
there acts of jurisdiction, which afterwards 'might seem to prove it as belonging to 
Guatemala. It is noteworthy that the inhabitants of Tacanii, of whose judge we are 
speaking, were the parties who on a former occasion removed the landmark of Pina- 
bete, and that the farms in question would be on Guatemalan territory if the said 
landmark had remained where they then placed it, and where afterwards the engineers 
of Guatemala placed the cross. The aforesaid commission who thus violated the con- 
vention to resjiect the actual boundaries was therefore justly arrested and consigned 
to the judge of the district, to be treated according to the Mexican laws. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 59 

The minister of Guatemala remoastrated against these acts, claiming that the farms 
belonged ami always had belonged to his country. An answer was sent on the 27th 
of last January, demonstrating how inexact were his assertions respecting the farms 
situated within the provisional boundaries of Mexico, and that they belonged to this 
republic even according to the official map of Guatemala. Refuting the accusations 
made by Seiior Herrera in a note directed to the Mexican authorities, it was proved 
to him by recent events that the abuses were committed by Guatemalan authorities. 

As Senor Herrera founded the claims of his country to the above-mentioned places 
on the fact that there were situated there a few auxiliary judges, named by the 
authority of Sibinal, a village in Guatemala, the undersigned acquainted him with 
the fact that when the nominating of these judges took place for the first time, the 
convention which obliged both countries to respect the status quo as to boundaries 
was in force; thus showing that Guatemala had violated her compromise. Senor 
Herrera said he would give an account of that note to his government, which until 
now has remained unanswered. 

IV. The accusations made against Mexico in this account, in which it speaks gen- 
erally of the continual Mexican invasions on Guatemalan territory, are not ouly ex- 
ceedingly bold but entirely false ; there exists a plan of Soconusco, carefully formed by 
Senor D. Jos6 E. Ibarra, as will at once be seen by reading the geographical and statisti- 
cal news of that department, which is on the margin on the same map, the ancient bound- 
aries are marked in red ink, and with green those which have been lately acknowledged. 
The space between both lines marks the advances made by Guatemala; and at the 
conclusion of the marginal note, the ditferent times of these advances are specified. 
Lately the invasions have continued. The archives of the department of foreign af- 
fairs are full of accounts of invasions which have occurred since 1870, until the present 
time; not least amongst the smaller invasions was the destruction of Seiior D. Matias 
Romero's property in Soconusco. Senor Romero, well known la Washington, where 
he represented Mexico for several years, notwithstanding his impartial and prudent 
character, had his property (which was situated in Mexican territory) invaded by 
natives of Guatemala, by order of a prefect of that nation, destroying his effects, 
takingprisoner one of his dependents, and wounding others; in November, 1H75, a com- 
plaint against this outrage was made to the Guatemalan Government, which up to 
this time has remained unnoticed; on the contrary, they have ascribed to Senor Romero 
the setting on fire of Guatemalan territory and other improbable crimes, which he has 
extensively refuted. 

In the same month and year an engineer, Senor D. Alejandro Prieto, secretary of the 
Mexican legation in Guatemala, made a survey on the frontier, by order of Senor Garza, 
then minister to that country. The survey was made in company with Senor Gen- 
eral Barrios, president of Guatemala, according to the letter addressed by Senor Garza 
to Senor Lafragua, and the governor of Chiapas in office on the 26th of November, 1875. 
From this visit ivsnlted the plan got up by Prieto, which is at present in the office, 
and which, as it has been made under the inspection of President Barrios, and on ac- 
count of other reasons, can hardly excite suspicion in Guatemala; in it is marked the 
line actually serving as boundary, and it also shows the points at present in dispute. 
The former line therefore must be the one referred to by the status quo stipulated in 
the convention of lb77. Therefore the actual dispatches of the minister of Guatemala 
prove that his Government, far from having respected the convention, has violated 
it in Tonintana Las Chicharras, Cuilco Viejo, and other points. 

The said Government has actually reached the point of approving the attempts of 
Judge Meoiio, who sought to murder a Mexican laud surveyor, and burned farms in 
Mexican territory. It has done more. In December last it dispatched a fi>rce, or 
consented to its dispatch, by the prefect of San Marcos (Guatemalan department), 
which invaded our territory and destroyed the landmark of Pinahete (the same which 
was demolished by the inhabitants of Tacan^, and which had since been recon- 
structed). The said prefect then proceeded to hoist the Guatemalan flag exactly on 
the cross so mysteriously erected by the Guatemalan engineers near Cuilco Viejo. 
Complaints having presented in Guatemala against these acts, that Government refused 
to give our Government any explanation, under the pretext that the affair should be 
treated in Mexico because Senor Loaeza had no instructions to receive the complaint 
Pressure being put on Senor Montufar, the minister for foreign affairs, by our represent- 
ative, who forwarded to him a copy of a letter from the undersigned, in which sur- 
prise was expressed at such conduct, he replied that the spot where the acts referred 
to took place belonged to Guatemala, without explaining how, and f irgetting that the 
undersigned, in his unanswered letter of 27th of January Last, had demonstrated the 
contrary. 

In the mean while the term of the convention of 7th December, 1877, had expired 
(31st of December. 1^79) without seeing the conclusion of the work of the scientific 
commissioners. The Mexican Government proposed to that of Guatemala that the 
said convention should be reserved for a term sufficient to attain the desired object, 
and decided its engineers should continue on the frontier, as in effect they have con- 



60 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

tinui'd, notwithstanding the fact thut the Guatemalan engineers were recalled by 
their Government w ilhout even uotifj ing this to that of Mexico. 

The President of Gnateuiala informed our minister personally that he was willing 
to renew the convention, and had already sent his instructi-ons to this effect to Senor 
Herrera. However, for several months he has not considered that he possesses sufiScient 
power to negotiate in the matter, and alleges that the instructions to thisetfect do not 
possess sufticient clearness. On the 11th of July, when Senor Herrera presented him- 
self to spe;ik with the undersigned on the friendly step being taken by the Govern- 
ment of the United States, he made the observation that the Governti ent of Guate- 
mala even yet had failed to send to its minister the proffered instructions, showingthat 
in effect he had already received them as his Government desired. This conduct of 
his Government, insincere and ap])areutly incomprehensible, is now explained by the 
commnnication of the President of Guatemala (by means of his representative to the 
Government of the United States). It appears that President Barrios has wished to 
gain time by complaining of certain alleged injuries on the part of the Mexican Gov- 
ernment, whose conduct he painted with false colors on seeking the interposition of 
the good offices of the United States. Notwithstanding, in the representation made 
by the Government, it appears to have been omitted to state that there was an im- 
pending renewal, solicited by Mexico, of the convention to go on with the survey and 
study of the frontier, a survey and study that has been pronounced by both Govern- 
ments indispensable to the locating of international boundaries by diplomatic uego- 
tiations or any other pacific means. 

The omissions are inexactitudes of the Government of General Barrios in their rep- 
resentations to the President of the United States, as well as the rest of its acts rela- 
tive to the subject of boundaries with Mexico, denounces its policy as entirely wanting 
in sincerity and frankness. 

The acts stated briefly in this article and others which we have not been able to 
take into account authorize our susi)icions that the above-mentioned Government, in 
addressing itself to the President of the United States, does not propose, as it pre- 
tends, to obtain an arbiter to decide the boundary question. We are quite certain that 
Government will see the impossibility of disputing Mexico's right to Chiapas and 
Soconusco, forming as they have for years a state of the Union, an integral part of 
the republic; also how impossible it is to fix the boundaries between this state and 
Guatemala, before studying the contested ground, whoever the arbiter charged with 
the decision might be. 

The object, then, in having arbitration can be no other than to gain time, as has 
been done before, continue the invasions, and enervate the actions of the Mexican 
Government in simjile defense of their national territory. 

The undersigned, with the object of consigning what passed in his conference with 
Minister Morgan, and the oliservations that the honorable Mr. Blaine's note gave rise 
to, has written the present memorandum. 

Mexico, July 2b, lesSl. 

IGNACIO MARISCAL. 

/ 



No. 34. 
Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 21)7.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, Novembei 2, 1881. (Received November 17.) 
Sir: Complying with iustructioiis coutairied in your dispatch No. 164, 
of the24tb of Auj^nst last, tliati should transmit promjitly as events pro- 
gress all information on the pending- difficulties between Mesico and 
Guatemala, I have now to report that a few days since 1 received the 
visit of Seiior Herrera, the Guatemalan minister. He had lately had an 
interview with President Gonzalez, and he expressed himself to me as 
not being at all .satisfied therewith. He appears to believe that hostil- 
ities will soon break out between the two countries. Although I have 
on several occasions lately seen Seiior Mariscal, he has never mentioned 
the subject to me. The only person at all connected with the Govern- 
ment with whom I have had any conversation upon the matter since my 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 61 

last dispatch relating thereto, Ko. 289, 20th October, is Mr, Fernandez, 
the official ma\'or of the foreign office. Meeting him casually one morn- 
iog in front of my dwelling, I requested him to send me a duplicate copy 
of Senor Mariscal's report to Congress, which I inclosed to you in my 
dispatch No. 291, 25th October. He introduced the subject of Guate- 
mala, but spoke in very general terms. I said to him that I saw with 
great pain that a conflict between that country and Mexico was immi- 
nent j that I felt the United States had done everything in their power, 
to prevent it, and that on my part I had endeavored to carry out my 
instructions in that direction. More than all, I said, I was grieved to 
see that ray Government's intentions in the matter had been misinter- 
preted, for whereas it had never had any object beyond wishing to keep 
the peace on this continent between two neighboring republics, its 
kindly offer at mediation had been received as an officious interference 
in a matter which did not concern it, if not as a menace, and that until 
the subject should be mentioned to me by Senor Mariscal, in the absence 
of further instructions from you, I could say nothing further. Pleas- 
antly, I said my great concernment in the matter was that, as the appe- 
tite is said to grow upon what it feeds upon, after Mexico had disposed 
of Guatemala she would not be satisfied until she had eaten Texas. 

I spoke thus to Sefior Fernandez, believing that he would report our 
conversation to Senor Mariscal, and in the hope that that gentleman 
would, when the occasion presented itself, introduce the subject, and thus 
give me another opportunity to i)resent to him your views. 

Several opportunities have occurred since then, but he has kept silent. 

The subject is on every tongue. It is constantly discussed by the 
press, and. I feel it my duty to say that nothing has occurred since I 
have been here which has excited so much bad feeling against us as 
this proffer of arbitration Say what, I may to the contrary, it is consid- 
ered as a menace. 

Every one I meet speaks to me upon the subject. To all I have held 
the same language, viz : that the United States had no other object in 
suggesting an arbitration beyond wishing to make a war between Mex- 
ico and Guatemala unnecessary, and that as regards Mexico it would be, 
I considered it, deeply to be lamented if she set the example of acquir- 
ing territory by conquest, and this course I shall continue to follow until 
otherwise instructed. 

The Trait d'Union of this morning publishes a paragraph to the effect 
that Mexico has five thousand soldiers on the frontier of Guatemala, 
and that Guatemala also has a considerable number of troops there. 

The articles and translation thereof I inclose. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure in No. 297. — From Le Trait d'Union, 1st of November, 1881. — Translation.] 

The Mexican Government has, it appears, been assured that five thousand soldiers 
are already on the Guatemala frontier. The Guatemalan Government is also send- 
ing a considerable number of troops of the line upon her frontier. 



62 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

1^0. 35. 
Mr. Morgan to Mr. Blaine. 
[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations. ] 
No. 304.] LEGATIOlSi OF. THE UNITED STATES, 

Mexico, November 9, 1881. (Received November 25.) 
Sir : I had a visit this raoruiug from the Guatemalan minister. He 
brought with him two newspajiers containing articles upon the subject 
of the differences between Mexico and Guatemala, in both of which the 
action of the United States Government was sharply criticised. As 
they are of the same character with those which I have on several occa- 
sions forwarded to you, I do not consider it necessary to inclose them 
in this disj^atch. 

Seiior Herrera informed me that he had had an interview with Senor 
Mariscal since the interview which I informed you in my dispatch No. 
297 (November 2, 1881) he had had with President Gonzalez. I called 
his attention to a paragraph which I had seen in the Trait d'Union 
newspaper, a few days ago, to the effect that the difficulties between 
Mexico and Guatemala were in a fair way of being amicably and hon- 
orably adjusted. He said that there was no truth in the statement. 
He, however, in the course of conversation said that there was a propo- 
sition pending by which Guatemala was to receive a certain sura of 
money from Mexico and a portion of territory adjoining, as 1 understood 
him, British Honduras, and that, this agreed upon, surveyors were to 
be appointed upon whose report a boundary line between the two coun- 
tries was to be established. I inquired of Seiior Herrera whether this 
did not show that negotiations were going on between him and Senor 
Mariscal. His answer was evasive. I said to him I thought it was 
proper I should know precisely how he was acting, as 1 considered it 
only due to my Government tbat it should be informed of what was 
going on. 

I called his attention to the fact that great offense had been taken by 
the Mexican Government and the people at the oft'erof mediation which 
had been suggested by the United States, and I said it appeared to me 
if Guatemala was in earnest in asking for friendly assistance she should 
not do anything until that proffered assistance had been definitely acted 
upon. At all events I said to him 1 should inform you of the negotia- 
tions which were being carried on between them. 
I have, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



No. 36. 
Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

No. 198.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 28, 1881. 
Sir: Referring to your correspondence with this Department since 
its instruction tendering the good ofiBcesof tlie Government of the United 
States in aid of the amicable settlement of the differences between Mex- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXJCO AND GUATEMALA. 63 

ico and Guatemala, I have to remark that it would bo a matter of the 
gravest disappointment if I found myself compelled to agree with you 
in the conclusion which you seemed to have reached in your last dis- 
patch. Eeporting in your ]S"o. 273, of September 22, 1881, your most 
recent conversation with Seiior Mariscal, the Mexican secretary for for- 
eign affairs, you say : 

I venture to suggest that unless the Government is prepared to announce to the 
Mexican Goveruuieut that it will actively, if necessary, preserve the peace, it would 
be the part of wisdom on our side to leave the matter where it is. Negotiations on 
the subject will not beneht Guatemala, aud you may depend upon it what we have 
already done in this direction has not tended to the increasing of the cordial relations 
which I know it is so much your desire to cultivate with this nation. 

"To leave the matter where it is" you must perceive is simply impos- 
sible, for it will not remain there. The friendly relations of the United 
States and Mexico would certainly not be promoted by the refusal of 
the good offices of this Government tendered in a spirit of most cordial 
regard both for the interests and honor of Mexico, and suggested only 
by the earnest desire to prevent a war useless in its purpose, deplora- 
ble in its means, and dangerous to the best interests of all the Central 
American republics in its consequences. To put aside such an amicable 
intervention as an unfriendly intrusion, or to treat it, as I regret to see 
the Mexican secretary for foreign affairs seems disi)osed, as a partisan 
manifestation on behalf of claims which we have not examined aud in- 
terests which we totally misunderstand, certainly cannot contribute 
" to the increasing of the cordial relations which you know it is so 
much our desire to cultivate with Mexico." / 

But, rn ore than this, "to leave the matter where it is" is to leave 
Mexico and Guatemala confronting each other in armed hostility, with 
the certainty that irritation and anger on the one side and extreme ap- 
prehension on the other will develop some untoward incident leading 
to actual collision. In such event no successful resistance can be antici- 
pated on the^ part of Guatemala. Whether the claims of Mexico be 
moderate or extravagant, whether the cession of territory be conhned to 
the present alleged boundary lines or be extended to meet the necessi- 
ties of a war indemnity, there would be another lamentable demonstra- 
tion on this continent of the so-called right of conquest, the general dis- 
turbance of the friendly relations of the American Republics, and the 
postponement for an indefinite period of that sympathy of .feeling, that 
community of purpose, and that unity of interest upon the development 
of which depends the future prosperity of these countries. 

The republic of Guatemala, one of those American Republics in whose 
fortunes the United States naturally feel a friendly interest, communi- 
cated to this Government that there existed between it and Mexico cer- 
tain differences which, after much diplomatic consultation, had failed to 
reach satisfactory settlement. Recognizing the relation of the United 
States to all the republics of this continent, aware of the friendly serv- 
ices which this Government has never failed to render to Mexico, and 
presuming not unnaturally that Mexico would receive our amicable 
counsel with cordiality and confidence, the Government of Guatemala 
asked our good offices with that power for the purpose of inducing it to 
submit to an impartial arbitration those differences upon which they 
had been unable to agree. To have refused such a request would not 
only have been a violation of international courtesy to Guatemala, but 
an indication of a want of confidence in the purposes and character of 
the Mexican Government which we could not and did not entertain. 
In tendering our good offices, the Mexican Government was distinctly 



64 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

informed that the United States " is not a self-constituted arbitrator of 
the destinies of either country or of both in this matter. It is simply 
the impartial friend of both, ready to tender frank and earnest counsel 
touching anything which may menace the jieace and prosperity of its 
neighbors." 

Before this instruction could have reached you, information was re- 
ceived that large bodies of Mexican troops had been ordered to the fron- 
tier in dispute. You were therefore directed to urge ui)on the Mexican 
Government the proi)riety of abstaining from all such hostile demon- 
stration, in order to attord opportunity tor the friendly solution of the 
dift'erences between the two Governments. It is unnecessary now to 
repeat the reasons which you were instructed to submit to the con>id- 
eration of the Mexican Government, and which were stated in the most 
earnest and friendly spirit, and wliich were communicated by you to the 
Mexican secretary for foreign affairs with entire fidelity. 

I now learn from your dispatches that our information was correct; 
that Mexican troops have been ordered to the disputed boundary line, 
and that while the Mexican Government does not absolutely reject a 
possible future arbitration, it is unwilling to postpone its own action to 
farther discussion, and does not receive the good offices of this Govern- 
ment in the spirit in which they have been tendered. The United States 
does not pretend to direct the policy of Mexico, nor has it made any pre- 
tension to decide in advance upon the merits of the controversy between 
Mexico and Guatemala. The Mexican Government is, of course, free to 
decbne our counsel, however friendly. / But it is necessary that we should 
know distinctly what the Mexican Government has decided. It is use- 
less, and, from your dispatches, I infer that it would be irritating, to 
keep before the Government of Mexico the <»ffer of friendly intervention, 
while on the other hand it would not be just to Guatemala to hohl that 
Government in suspense as to whether there was a possibility of the ac- 
ceptance of the amicable mediation which we have oifered. 

You will, therefore, upon the receipt of this instruction, ask for an in- 
terview with the secretary for foreign affairs. You will press upon his 
reconsideration the views which you have already submitted to him; as- 
sure him of the earnestness with which this Government desires a peace- 
ful solution of the existing differences, and inform him of our profound 
regret and disappointment that the tender of our good offices has not 
been received in the spirit in which it was made. ., You will, if he affords 
you the opi)ortunity, endeavor to enforce the practicability of the solu- 
tion which you suggested, both to himself and the Guatemalan minister, 
by which tlie arbitration could be limited to the question of boundary 
without involving the title to the province of Chiapas. . 

If the Government of Mexico should be disposed to accept an arbitra- 
tion, limited in its point of settlement, as Mr. Herrera, the Guatemalan 
minister, indicated would be accei)table to his Government, you will 
ask the assurance of the Mexican Government that, pending the discus- 
sion necessary to perfect such an arrangement, all hostile demonstra- 
tion should be avoided, and, if possible, that the Mexican troops should 
be withdrawn from the immediate vicinity of the disputed boundary. 
But this latter request you will not insist upon, if it should be an obsta- 
cle to obtaining the consent of Mexico to a limited arbitration. 

Should the Mexican Government, however, decide that it was not 
consistent with its views to accept a friendly intervention in the differ- 
ences between itself and Guatemala, you will inform the secretary for 
foreign affairs that you accept this decision as undoubtedly within the 
right of Mexico to make. You will express the very deep and sincere 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 65 

regret which this Government will feel if it shall find the powerful re- 
public of Mexico unwilling to join the Governineut of the United States 
in maintaining and establishing the principle of friendly arbitration for 
international differences on the continent of America. Mexico and the 
United States, acting in cordial harmony, can induce all the other inde- 
pendent governments of North and South America to aid in fixing this 
policy of peace for all the futnre disputes between the nations of the 
Western Hemisphere. And it would be a marked and impressive pre- 
cedent, if, in a dispute with a weaker neighbor, Mexico should frankly 
consent to a friendly arbitration of all existing differences. 
/You will further say to Mr. Mariscal that you are expressly instructed 
to call his attention to an expression of opinion which you have reported 
in your dispatch No. 253, of the 11th of August, 1881, as follows: 

He (Sefior Mariscal) appears to entertain a very bad opinion of tlie President of 
Guatemala, and to think that his appeal to the United States has a purpose beyond the 
settlement of the boundary betweeu the two countries. He said, for instance, he had 
been informed that you had expressed an opinion favorably to the consolidation of 
the Central American republics into one goTernment, that the President of Guate- 
mala was favorable to such a project, that he would like in such an event to become 
the president of the new nation, and that he was endeavoring to obtain the influence of 
the United States to further his ambition in that direction. He seems impressed with 
the idea that General Barrios is Mexico's enemy, and that it would not be well to have 
his power increased. 

Of course the Government of the United States has no information as 
to the personal ambitions of General Barrios, and it would deem any 
inquiry into, or consideration of, such a subject both unworthy and im- 
proper in any discussion of the great interests which concern the peo- 
ple of Central America and their relation to the kindred republics of 
this continent. I am unwilling to believe, and, if compelled to believe, 
would deeply regret that any such consideration could affect the tem- 
per or thought of the Mexican Government in determining its policy 
towards the republics of Central America. / 

But in reference to the union of the Central American' Republics under 
one federal government, the United States is ready to avow that no 
subject appeals more strongly to its sympathy nor more decidedly to 
its judgment ; nor is this a new policy. For many years this Govern- 
ment has urged upon the Central American States the importance of 
such a union to the creation of a well-ordered and constitutionally gov- 
erned republic, and our ministers have been instructed to impress this j 
upon the individual governments to which they have been accredited, 
and to the Central American statesmen with whom they have been asso- 
ciated. And we have always cherished the belief that in this effort we 
had the sincere sympathy and cordial co-operation of the Mexican Gov- 
ernment. Under the conviction that the future of the people of Central 
America was absolutely dependent upon the establishment of a federal 
government which would give strength abroad and maintain peace at 
home, our chief motive in the recent communications to Mexico was to 
prevent the diminution, either political or territorial, of any one of 
these states, or the disturbance of their exterior relations, in order that, 
trusting to the joint aid and friendship of Mexico and the United States,, 
they might be encouraged to persist in their efforts to establish a gov- 
ernment which would, both for their advantage and ours, represent their 
combined wealth, intelligence, and character. 

If this Government is expected to infer from the language of Seiior 
Mariscal that the prospect of such a result is not agreeable to the pol- 
icy of Mexico, and that the interest which the United States has 
always manifested in its consummation renders unwelcome the friendly 
H. Ex. 154 5 



66 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

intervention which we have offered, I can only say that it deepens the 
regret with which we will learn the decision of the Mexican Govern- 
ment, and compels me to declare that the Government of the United 
States will consider a hostile demonstration against Guatemala, for the 
avowed purpose or with the certain result of weakening her power in 
such an eftbrt, as an act not in consonance with the position and char- 
acter of Mexico, not in harmony with the friendly relations existing 
between ns, and injurious to the best interests of all the republics of 
this continent. 

The Government of the United States has the sincerest sympathy 
and the profoundest interest in the prosperity of the Spanish repuidics 
of America, and is influenced by no selfish considerations in its earnest 
efforts to prevent war between them. This country will continue its 
policy of peace, even if it cannot have the great aid which the co-opera- 
tion of Mexico would assure; and it will hope at no distant day to see 
such concord and co-operation between all the nations of America as 
will render war impossible. 

You will leave with Mr. Mariscal a copy of this dispatch. 
I am, &c., 

JAMES G. BLAINE. 



Ko. 37. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelingliuysen. 

[Extract.— Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 156, 47th Congress, 1st session. 3 

No. 335.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico^ January 10, 1882. (Received Jantiary 26.) 

Sir : Your dispatch No. 198, 28th of November, 1881, relating to the 
difficulties now existing between Mexico and Guatemala, was received 
on the 29th of December. On the same day I addressed a note to Seiior 
Mariscal, asking him to name a day when I could communicate to him 
the contents thereof. A copy of my note I inclose. 

Senor Mariscal replied on the 30th, fixing the following day (31st) for 
our interview. A translation of his note I inclose. 

At the appointed hour (12 m.) I found myself in the reception-room 
of the department of state, and Sefior Mariscal soon came in. 

I stated to him that I had transmitted to you the substance of the in- 
terviews which I had had with him at various times upon the subject 
of the difficulties between Mexico iind Guatemala, and the suggestion of 
the President that they should be submitted to arbitration; ■^ ^ / 
that I had informed you how the suggestion had been received by the 
Mexican Government and people, viz, as an intrusion into affairs which 
were of no concern to the United States ; that I had informed you nothing 
since I had been here had created more ill-feeling towards the United 
States than this; that the President of Guatemala was regarded by him 
as a bad man, unfriendly to Mexico; that he supposed it to be the wish 
of the United States that the Central American states should be con- 
solidated into one nation ; that General Barrios was understood by him 
to favor that idea; that should it be carried 6ut Barrios would wish to 
be the President of the new nation ; that he was counting on the influ- 
ence of the United States with the view of obtaining its countenance to 
his ambitious i)retensions in that direction, and that it would not be in 
the interest of Mexico if his power should be increased. That 1 had 



BOUND AEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 67 

stated to yon that one great obstacle, as I thought, to Mexico consent- 
ing to an arbitration was the question of title to Chiapas; that I had 
informed you I had suggested to him (Sefior Mariscal) whether this 
question might not be eliminated from the controversy by an under- 
standing between the Mexican Government and the Guatemalan Gov- 
ernment to the effect that if the arbitration was accepted, and Guate- 
mala set up a claim to that State, the arbitration should decide against 
Guatemala; that 1 had in a conversation with the Guatemalan minister 
made the same suggestion, without, however, having informed him that 
I had had any conversation with him (Seiior Herrera) upon the subject;; 
that Mr. Herrera had replied that his Government would be willino- ta 
agree that such an understanding should be had, and that I had in- 
formed you I was not without hope, if I should be instructed to make- 
such a proposition, it would be accepted. 

That I had stated to you further that, in my opinion, unless the 
United States were prepared to take the position that they would in- 
terfere positively to preserve the peace, it would be wiser on our part 
to leave the case where it was, as what had been done by us up to now- 
had produced only irritation, had been of no service to Guatemala, and 
would not be in the future, while I felt convinced it would not tend to 
the increasing of the cordial relations which I knew it was the desire 
of the United States to cultivate with Mexico. 

That this information I had given you as far back as September last, 
that the subject had received the consideration which its importance 
deserved, and that I had on the 29th instant received a dispatch dated 
on the 28th of November, which I proposed then to read to him. In order 
that there might be no misapprehension hereafter as to what I had said 
to Seiior Mariscal on this occasion, I had written the substance of the^ 
above. 

Seiior Mariscal said that everything I had stated to you was exacts 
except with regard to the reception which the suggestion of arbitratiou 
had met with from the Mexican Government, and he protested that ife 
had been received as an amicable one. 

I replied that I might strike that expression out, as I intended what 
I said as prefatory only to the dispatch which I proposed to read al- 
though the comments which I had seen in the press of the country of 
all parties, and what I had heard on all sides from every person with 
whom I had conversed upon the subject, would have justified such an 
assertion. 

I therefore erased from the copy of the remarks which I had given 
him the words " Mexican Government." 

I proceeded to read to him your dispatch and, when I had concluded 
handed him a copy thereof. ' 

I then said to him : 

In obedience, therefore, to the instructions contained in the dispatch which I have 
just read to you, I formally suggest to the Mexican Government through your excel- 
lency — 

1. That all the differences now unhappily existing between Mexico and Guatemala 
be submitted to arbitration. 

2. That pending this arbitration the troops of Mexico be withdrawn from the im- 
mediate neighborhood of the Guatemalan frontier. 

3. I inform you that the President of the United States is willing to accept the posi- 
tion of arbitrator between the two Governments. 

4. I respectfully ask an early decision of your excellency's Government upon these 
suggestions. 

Sefior Mariscal said that the matter should have the attention which 
its seriousness required, and that he would send me a rejjly as soon as 
he possibly could. 



68 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

The couversatiou then turned into a different channel, and I soon 
after took ray leave of him. 

More than ten days have elapsed since this interview. As I have 
had no response from Seiior Mariscal I deem it proper to advise you of 
what has taken place. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure 1 in No. 335.] 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Mariscal. 

Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, December 29, 1881. 
Sir : I have received a dispatcli from my Government the contents of which I am 
instructed to make known to yonr excellency. 

I have therefore to request that your excellency will name a day and hour when it 
will be convenient for you to receive me for that j)urpose. 
I renew, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure 2 in No. 335.— Translation.] 

Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Morgan. 

Department of Foreign Relations, 

Mexico, Decemher 30, 1881. 

Mr. Minister : In answer to your excellency's note of yesterday, in which you in- 
form me of your desire for an interview in order that you may place me in possession 
of the contents of a disx^atch received by you from your Governmeut, I have the honor 
to say to your excellency that I will hold myself at your disposition at this department 
to-morrow, Saturday, the 3l8t, at twelve o'clock. 
I renew, &c., 

IGNO. MARISCAL. 



No. 38. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

No. 354.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, February 6, 1882. (Received February 17.) 

Sm: On the 3d instant I had an interview with Seuor Mariscal, in 
which he took occasion to say that he had not replied to the proposition 
which I had made to him on the 31st of December last in obedience to 
your instructions contained in your 198, November 28 last, and which 
proposition is detailed in my 335, January 10 last, because before doing 
so he wished that there should be a Mexican minister at Washington 
who he could be satisfied would properly represent the views of his Gov- 
ernment, and one who, like Senor Romero, thoroughly understood the 
questions now pending between Mexico and Guatemala. 

He also said that, as there had been a change in the Department of 
State, the views of the Administration upon this subject might have 
undergone a change. 

I repeated to Senor Mariscal what I have invariably said to him upon 
this subject, viz, that the United States had never intended to express 
any opinion upon the merits of the dispute between Mexico and Guate- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO ADD GUATEMALA. 69 

mala ; that their sole desire was that the peace which now prevails on 
the northern portion of the continent shonld not be disturbed, and that 
when the President, at the instauce of Guatemala, consented to act as 
mediator between them his sole purpose was, if possible, to prevent a 
war. 

I repeated, also, what I had said to him on other occasions, that one 
great interest which the United States felt in the question was that 
Mexico should not set the example of extending her territory by con- 
quest. I called his attention to the fact that it would not be a new de- 
parture iu the policy of Mexico if she should agree to submit her differ- 
ences with Guatemala to arbitration, inasmuch as this mode of settling 
any difficulty which may arise between her and the United States is 
recognized iu the treaties between the two countries (Art. XXI, treaty 
of 1848; Art. VII, treaty of 1853). I could not, I said, find any good 
reason why Mexico should be willing to submit any differences which 
she might have with the United States to the arbitrament of a common 
friendly power, and refuse the same mode of settlement in her disputes 
with her southern neighbor. The conversation here turned into another 
channel. 

In the meanwhile Senor Mariscal and Mr. Herrera are continuing their 
negotiations. Mr. Herrera informed me a few days since that he had 
fixed upon the sum of four millions of dollars as the indemnity which 
Mexico was to pay to Guatemala in consideration of the latter giving 
up 'all claim to Chiapas and Soconusco. 
I have, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



Xo. 39. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Xo. 357.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, February 13, 1882. (Received February 23.) 
Sir : In my dispatch Xo. 354, of 6th instant, rei)orting my interview 
with Senor Mariscal upon the subject of the difficulties existing between 
Mexico and Guatemala, I said : 

In the ineauwhile SeBor Mariscal and Mr. Herrera are continuing their negotia- 
tions. 

After that dispatch had been mailed Mr. Herrera called on me and 
left with me a copy of a memorandum of a treaty which he had sub- 
mitted to Senor Mariscal. He also left with me quite a voluminous 
argument which he submitted to Senor Mariscal when he handed him 
the memorandum. 

Although Mr. Herrera informed me that he had forwarded a copy of 
both documents to Washington, I have considered it proper to transmit 
a copy and translation of the memorandum, which you will find* in- 
closed. I do not forward a copy and translation of Mr. Herrera's argu- 
ment, my purpose being merely to show you that negotiations were 
going on between the parties and the basis ni^on which Guatemala was 
willing to treat. 

I have, &c., 

P. H. MORGAX, 

* For inclo3iire, see Mr. Romero's note of May 6, 1882, inclosure No. 13. 



70 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 40. 

31r. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan. 

[Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 1.56, Forty-seveuth Cougress, first session.] 

No. 232.] Department of State, 

^Yashington, February 16, 1882. 

Sir : I inclose* translation of a note received at this Department a 
few days since from Mr. TJbico, late minister of Guatemala at Wash- 
ington. 

I do not share in Mr. Ubico's fear that the dispatches or policy of 
our Government will be misunderstood. As this ai)prehp.nsion is ex- 
i:>ressed in connection with the announcement of a treaty between Gua- 
temala and Mexico, it is well to observe that the date of the presenta- 
tion of the draft of the treaty clearly evinces that no such misappre- 
hension of the policy of our Government had any effect on that event. 
Mr. Ubico does not give me a coijy of the vrojet, nor a synopsis of its 
contents, nor even a detailed statement of its objects. I can, therefore, 
only instruct you generally that the President will look with favor upon 
anything tending to restore harmony and good will between the two 
governments, and expects you to use with judgment and discretion 
your best powers to advance anything that, in your opinion, will tend 
to that encl. 

1 am, &c., 

FEED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. 



No. 41. 

il/r. Morgan to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Extract.] 

No. 372.1 Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, March 8, 1882. (Received March 29.) 
Sir : Senor Herrera, the Guatemalan minister, called on me this morn- 
ing. 

***** * * 

He asked me then whether I had read his argument. I answered that 
I had not. I said to him that 1 could repeat what I had said to him, to 
Seiior Mariscal, and to every one else who had spoken to me upon the 
subject, that in so far as I was concerned I would not consent to give 
any ground for the belief that the United States were any party to 
•wliat is called the Mexico-Guatemala question; that the only position 
"wliich they could occupy was that of an arbitrator, aud this only after 
both governments had agreed to submit their differences to arbitration. 
I said to them that when this happened, and I was instructed by you to 
make a report upon the questions which were pending between the two 
governments, I would then do allinmypower towards informing myself 
as to the merits of the controversy, and give you the result of my in- 
vestigation, but that until that time arrived 1 did not propose to pre- 
judge the question by reading tlie ex parte statements of either side. 

*For iuclosure, see document No. 48. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 71 

He said that Seuor Mariscal had informed him he would take no decis- 
ion upon his proposition until he had heard from Seiior Romero. 

* * * * * * * ■ 



I have, &c. 



P. H. MOEGAN. 



No. 42. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Frelingliuysen. 

[Extract.] 

ISTo. 374.] Legation of the United States, 

■ Mexico, March 28, 1882. (Received April 18.) 

Sir : I transmit herewith a copy and translation of the "memoranda" 
sent to me by Senor Mariscal of an interview which, at his request, I 
Lad with him on the 18th instant, in which he communicated to me the 
answer of the President of Mexico to the proposition which, under in- 
structions contained in Department's dispatch 198, 28th November, 
1881, I had submitted to him on the 31st December last, to the effect 
that the differences existing between Mexico and Guatemala be sub- 
mitted to arbitration; that pending the arbitration the Mexican troops 
should be withdrawn from the immediate neighborhood of the G-uatemalan 
frontier ; informing him that the President of the United States would 
be willing to accept the position of arbitrator between the two gov- 
ernments, the details of which are given in my dispatch, No. 335, 10th 
January, 1882. 

Senor Mariscal says that the principal cause of excitement to Gua- 
temala is the question of the right of Mexico to the State of Chiapas, 
including the territory of Socouusco, which forms a portion thereof; 
that this question Mexico has declared not to be a matter for discussion, 
or one which could be subjected to any judgment; and therefore that 
it would be impossible to submit all the differences between the two 
Governments to arbitration. But that if Guatemala would expressly 
consent to exclude the question of Chiapas and Soconusco from-the dis- 
cussion, Mexico would not find it inconvenient to submit the question 
of boundary whicli now agitates the two nations to a limited arbitra- 
tion, although he says that once the pretensions of Guatemala to a 
state of Mexico are frankly abandoned, the question with reference to 
the boundary of Socouusco will be easily settled without the necessity 
of an appeal to arbitration. 

That he cannot now give a definite answer to the proposition that, 
pending the arbitration, Mexican troops should be withdrawn from the 
frontier; that this would depend upon the circumstances which may 
arise pending the arbitration, should one bedeternnhed u])on, the i)res- 
ent object of Mexican troops on the frontier being to prevent the in- 
cursions of armed Guatenuilians into Mexican territory which, Seiior 
Mariscal says, Mexicans have suffered from for many years, and that 
the said troops are not there now for any purpose of invading Guate- 
mala, a thing no one has thought of; that, within the limits above 
specified, the Mexican Government would be disposed to admit, and 
would admit with pleasure, the arbitration of the President of the 
United States. 



72 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

I had always protested aud had endeavored to show that the only 
interest the ITuited States had in wishing to see the difficulties between 
Mexico and Guatemala healed was the desire she had that the peace of 
the continent should not be disturbed. 

if ***** * 

I have, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[InclosTire 1 in 374. — Translation.] 
Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Morgan. 

Department for Foreign Relations, 

.Mexico, March 20, 1882. 
Mr. Minister : I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the memoranda 
which I have drawn np of the conference which we hekl yesterday, in which I gave 
you the answer of the Mexican Govei-nment, and which I read to you, upon the pro- 
position which your excellency made to me ou the 31st December last upon the sub- 
ject of the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala. 
I improve, «fec., 

IGNO. MARISCAL. 

Memoranda of a conference held on the 18th March, 1882, between the United States minister 
and the undersigned, secretary for foreign relations, respecting the difficulties between 
Mexico and Guatemala. 

Having requested Mr. Philip H. Morgan to call at this Department this day at 
eleven o'clock, and he having presented himself at the hour uamed was immediately 
received, and the undersigned informed him that until now he had not been able to 
give him the answer of the Mexican Government to the proposition.s which had been 
made by Mr. Morgan on the 31st December last, as well because it was necessary that 
the question should be carefully studied, as well as on account of the illness of the 
President which prevented him from giving his instructions upon a question of such 
high importance. 

Thereupon the undersigned read to Mr. Morgan his answer, as follows : 

« » » » # » » 

Coming down to the propositions which you submitted to me, I have been instructed 
by the President to answer in the following terms: 

As respects the first, I must observe that the principal controversy which has ex- 
cited Guatemala is the one which relates to the right by which Mexico holds the 
state of Chiapas, as one of the members of the Federal Union, includiug the territory 
of Soconusco, which forms part a thereof; but, as has been explained ou a former oc- 
casion, the Mexican Government finds itself in the absolute impossibility of discuss- 
ing, or of submitting the rights of the nation to this portion of her territory to any 
judgment. For the same reason it is not pos=sible to submit all the dilferences which 
exist between the two governments to arbitration as you propose shovild be done. 
But if the Guatemala Government will agree to exjtressly exclude so much as relates 
to Chiapas and Soconusco, the Mexican Government will not find it inconvenient to 
submit to a determinate arbitration which woulil be limited to the question of bound- 
ary which then surged between the two countries.-' 

i say which then surged, because the pretensions of Guatemala upon the whole or 
a portion of that Mexican state frankly eliminated, the questions which have scarcely 
been mentioned with reference to the boundary of Soconusco would be from that 
time easily arranged without the necessity of appealing to an arbitrator. 

The aforesaid pretensions of acquiring in whole or in part the territory to which I 
refer, or of obtaining a compensation therefor, whether the same has been expressly 
Btipulated, or whether in a disguised form, has been and is the only difficulty between 
the two governments. If it should disappear by reason of a sensible abandonment 
■which the Guatemalan Government would make of such unfounded aspirations, there 
•would probal)ly be no necessity for an arbitration to decide any point of difference 
upon the question of boundary (between the two countries), besides removing the 
great reason for disagreement which, up to now, has divided us. 

The second projjosition, to the effect that the Mexican forces be withdrawn from the 
frontier pending the arbitration, cannot be decided-upon at the present moment ; to 
maintain our forces upon our territory and near the line provisionally recognized by 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 73^ 

Guatemala will depend upon the circumstances arising during the arbitration, if an 
arbitrator be agreed upon, or even if any agreement should be concluded to arbi- 
trate. The object of maintaining a personal force on the frontier alluded to, whose 
numbers are far from alarming, is to prevent the incursions of armed Guatemalians, 
from which our frontier population has suffered because of the absence ordinarily of 
a Mexican soldier there. This Government has never in any way pretended to menace 
Guatemala with an invasion with these troops, and no one has thought of such a 
thing. ' 

Your third proposition consists in the formal offer that the President of the United 
States shall be the arbitrator between the two governments of Mexico and Guatemala. 
/Within the limitations expressed, that is to say, not including in the arbitration 
the right which Mexico has to the whole of the territory which to-day comprises the 
state *of Chiapas, the GoA^ernment of Mexico is disposed to admit, and will admit with 
pleasure, the arbitration of the President of the Uuited States for the purpose of de- 
ciding any question which may require the employment of such a method and which) 
is susceptible of being decided by it in determining the boundary of both nations. . 

Notwithstanding, we cannot at the i^reseut time know if any such qiiestion has not 
up to date been discussed by Guatemala except so far as relates to its boundary with 
our country, aud this always under the precautions and from the second point of view 
which has been above referred to. 

Mr. Morgan said he would take the answer which had been given him into con- 
sideration, that he would transmit it to his Government, making explanation to thia 
Department upon its contents, if, after having examined it attentively, he should 
deem it proper to do so. 

- IGNACIO MARISCAL. 



[Inclosure 2 in No. 374.] 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. MariscaJ. 

Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, March 24, 1882. 
Sir : I have received your excellency's note of the 20th instant, together with a 
copy of memoranda of the conference which, at your request, I held with you on 
the 18th instant upon the subject of the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala.. 
^ # * # * ^ ^ 

In respect to the answers which your excellency has made to the proposition sub- 
mitted to you by me under instructions, in our interview of the 31st December, a prop- 
osition which had no other purpose than the laudable one, as I think, of obviating & 
war between two American republics, and which was made as the friend of both con- 
testants, I have only to transmit them to my Government. 

I renew, »fec., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



No. 43. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Morgan. 

No. 252.] Department of State, 

Washington^ April 3, 1882. 
Sir: Your dispatch of the 8th ultimo, No. 372, reporting your inter- 
view with the Guatemalan minister in Mexico, Senor Herrera, touching 
the pending boundary troubles between Guatemala and Mexico, has 
been received. 

Your course in the matter was prudent and is approved. 
I am, &c., 

FRED'K T. FEELINGHUYSEN. 



74 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

ifo. 44. 

Mr. Frelmghuysen to Mr. Morgan. 

No. 254.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 1], 1882. 
Sir : I transmit herewith for your inforiiiatioii tlie inclosed copy of a 
Dote which I have received from the Mexican minister at this capital, of 
the 9th ultimo, respecting the boundary dispute between the republics 
of Mexico and Guatemala ; also a copy of my reply thereto.* 

I am unable to furnish you with a copy of the printed pamphlet 
mentioned iu the minister's note, one copy of the same only having- been 
received here. 

I am, &c., 

FRED'K T. FEELIXGHUYSEN. 



Y.—FUBTHER APPEALS FROM GUATEMALA FOR THE MEDLATLON OF 
THE UNLTED STATES DURLNG MR. MOXTUFAR'S SPECLAL MLSSLOA"^ TO 
WASHLNGTON. 

No. 45. 

Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. 

[Translation. — Published heretofore iu Foreign Relations ] 

Washington, Kovemhcr 2, 1881. (Received November 4.) 

Mr. Secretary of State : 1 have had the honor to receive your 
excellency's highly esteemed note of the 31st ultimo,t relative to the 
manifestation of appreciation and gratitude on the part of the depart- 
ment of state of Guatemala to the Government of the United States 
for having deigned to interpose its powerful mediation in the boundary 
question between Guatemala and Mexico. 

The Government to which I belong feels deeply grateful, and now 
lays before your excellency, tLrough me, some points of the question, 
which, although they are very well known at the Department of State 
of the United States, require, perhaps, some evidence for their better 
elucidation. 

In Mexico it is asserted, and even taught in the schools, that the ter- 
ritory of Guatemala, previous to the conquest, was under the control of 
the Mexican Indians. The historian Juarros, in his compendium of the 
history of Guatemala, proves the contrary. The historian Garcia Pelaez 
proves the same thing by adducing a series of facts. 

This, however, is not the subject of the question of to-day. The events 
of a less remote period are to be considered. 

Charles V, King of Spain, and Philip II, his successor, declared the 
captaincy-general of Guatemala to be totally distinct from the vice-re- 
gency of New Spain, as may be seen in law No. G, title 15, book 20 of 
the " Recopilacion de Indias." The same law clearly, decidedly, and 
precisely says that the territory of Chiapas and Soconusco belongs to 
the captaincy-general of Guatemala, and that it forms a part thereof. 

This law did not remain written. It was nothing but the exi^ression 

* See documents Nos. 50 and 51 for inclosures in this dispatch. t See No. 19. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 75 

of what bad already existed before it was promulgated, and was faith- 
fiillj" and puuctnally executed until the era of independence. 

Guatemala declared itself independent of Sp^iin, together with all the 
provinces which composed the cax)taincy-geueral, on the 15th day of 
September, 1821. 

Mexico established an ephemeral Empire, and the aristocracy and the 
clergy of Guatemala, disregarding the wishes of the people, united with 
that Empire through the use of violent means, according to the mani- 
festo of January 5, 1822. 

The annexationists, in order to carry out their designs, required the 
assistance of Mexican forces, and General Filisola, at the head of those 
forces, saturated the soil of Central America with blood. In Mexico, 
however, fortune did not favor them. The pronuuciamento of Cassa- 
mata destroyed the Empire, and General Filisola was obliged to return 
to his own country. His journey from Guatemala to Mexico, however, 
was not unproductive of advantage to him. There was a popular junta 
at Chiapas, which was installed April 8, 1823. That body resolved to 
convoke a general junta (council) to decide what was best to be done. 
That junta was convoked. It was put to vote whether Chiapas belonged 
to Mexico or to Guatemala, and, the question not having been settled, 
it was resolved that the province should be i)rovisional]y separated from 
both Mexico and Guatemala, and that it should have a government of 
its own until the adoption of other measures. 

Such was the state of aifairs when General Filisola returned to Mexico . 
On passing througb Chiapas he dissolved the government of that 
province. 

This proceeding called forth remonstrances and protests which were 
productive of no favorable results to the aggrieved parties. Recourse 
was had to arms, however, and the dissolved junta was again installed. 

A new revolution, i)romoted by the party which favored Mexico, aided 
directly by the latter country, obtained a triumph. The reiterated mani- 
festations of the aggrieved people of Chiapas and the representations 
of the Government of Guatemala! called forth a resolution which was 
adopted in Mexico May 26, 1824, to the effect that there should be a free 
expression of the ])opular will. 

But although liberty was talked of on one hand, on the other all the 
violent means possible were used in order to secure a result favorable to 
Mexico. Among the means of coercion was a Mexican division stationed 
on the frontier, which intimidated the people of the vicinity. TLe voting 
was to take place in presence of two comujissioner.s, one a Mexican 
and the other a Guatemalan. They did not wait until the Guatemalan 
commissioner arrived, but, as soon as Mr. Jose Xavier Bustamente, the 
Mexican commissioner, made his appearance, business commenced, and 
Cbiapas was declared to be united to Mexico on the 12th and 14th of 
September, 1824. 

Such is the title by which Mexico possesses Chiapas. 

The party in Socouusco which had voted against annexation to Mex- 
ico solemnly declared its allegiance to Guatemala, which was then an 
integral part of the Central American Republic. This declaration bears 
date of July 24, 1824. 

The National Constituent Assembly of Central America, on the 18th 
day of August of the sa . e year, declared Soconusco to be an integral 
part of Central America. 

In the year 1825 there was an arrangement for peace made between 
the Central American Republic and that of Mexico. That arrangement 
is called the preliminaries of the year 1825. According to it both Re- 



76 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

publics were to withdraw their forces from Socouusco, and that district 
was to remain under municipal government until its status should be 
defined by a treaty for t^e settlement of the boundary question. That 
arrangement was faithfully observed by Guatemala, but was infringed 
by Mexico. 

In the year 1842 General Santa Ana sent forces against Socouusco 
and annexed it de facto to the country which he governed. Santa Ana 
profited by the revolution which dissolved the Central American Fed- 
eration in 1839, and niade five independent states of that country, 
which states are now called Eepublics. That outrage can form no legal 
basis. 

Guatemala protested energetically, and she has ever conducted her 
relations with the neighboring Republic on the basis of that protest, 
and in no other way. The other sections of Central America likewise 
energetically protested. 

Arbitration has be^u proposed to Mexico since 1824, but this she has 
never been willing to accept. At length she was told to appoint an ar- 
bitrator, and that Guatemala would abide by his decision. 

This proposition, which was perhaps without an example in the his- 
tory of the New World, was likewise rejected. 

This is sufficient to enable the enlightened Government of the United 
States to judg*^ of the justice of the cause of Guatemala. 

What most .strikes the attention in this matter, however, is that the 
district of Socouusco, which is Guatemala de jure, is not now, according 
to Mexico, what it was in the year 1842, when it was occupied by Santa 
Ana, It has grown, and is growing daily. Towns which were Guate- 
malan in 1843, and to which Mexico could then lay no claim, even 
admitting the annexation to be legal, are now Mexican, and to dispute 
this is called outraging the Mexican flag. 

Socouusco is constantly increasing in extent, and it would not be sur- 
prising if it should one day extend to the palace of the old Spanish 
captains-general. 

No treaties were concluded between Guatemala and Mexico from 1825 
until December, 1877. At the latter date a convention was concluded 
in the city of Mexico which was signed by Mr. Uriarte, the minister of 
Guatenuila, and by Mr. Vallarta, the secretary of state of the Mexican 
Kepublic. 

It is proposed in that convention to make an examination of the fron- 
tier, and to have surveys made i)reparatory to conferences with regard 
to limits. The examination was to be made, by a mixed commission of 
topographers and astronomers, from the bar of Ocos to the hill of Izbul, 
within a definite time. 

This treaty met with opposition in the cabinet of Guatemala because 
a hidden design was detected in it. For a mere survey of boundaries 
it is not necessary that a treaty should be signed by two Governments, 
nor is there any need of the forms required by the law of nations for 
permanent laws; an exchange of notes is sufficient. The real design 
of the Mexican Government was very clear. That Government intended 
that the hill of Izbul and the bar of Ocos should be declared by a treaty 
to be the fixed limits between the two Kepublics. 

Such, however, were the assurances given by Mr. Diaz Covarrubias 
to the President of Guatemala that Mexico did not wish to prejudge the 
question, but simply to have it examined, that that high functionary at 
length, for the sake of peace, and relying upon the incessant protesta- 
tions that the boundary question was not to be prejudged, ratified the 
treaty without the intervention of the legislative body, because the con- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 77 

stitution had not at that time been promuigated ; and a previous enact- 
ment had invested the President with full powers in such cases. 

The Uriarte-Yallarta treaty having been ratified on the basis that no 
question in relation to boundaries was to be prejudged, the mixed com- 
mission began its work, which it was unable to finish within the time 
fixed for that purpose. Mexico asked for an extension of the time on 
the same basis, viz, that no question in relation to boundaries was to 
be prejudged, and her request was granted. The time fixed again ex- 
pired before the mixed commission had finished its work even on the 
first section. Mexico asked for another extension, which was not 
granted. Instead of the request being granted, it was declared that 
the treaty had become null and void because the second extension had 
expired before the termination of the work on even the first section. 

The Government of Mexico asked for another extension, which was 
likewise refused. It demanded it peremptorily, and its demand was 
not acceded to. It almost threatened to declare war if the Uriarte-Val- 
larta treaty was not declared to be still in force, and we courteously 
replied that that treaty no longer existed, and that we would not give 
it new life. 

The events which took place while the surveys were going on have 
left very deep traces, and clearly reveal the situation in which we are. 

The place called " Cuilco Viejo," which was recognized as being Gua- 
temalan after the occupation of Soconusco by Guatemalan authorities, 
and where the persons who rose in 1870 against the administration 
of General Cerna entered into as Guatemalan territory, was declared 
to belong to Mexico, and to enter that place is now considered as an 
offense to Mexico and as a punishable aggression against Mexican terri- 
tory. 

A Mexican surveyor has, from time immemorial, surveyed the land in 
districts owned by Guatemala. A commission of the Guatemalan muni- 
cipality of the town called Malacatan set out for the purpose of occupy- 
ing a position on the frontier. A Mexican force which was concealed 
in a wood fired on the party, killing the first alcalde and an individual 
of the municipality, and wounding four other persons. 

A complaint was presented, and satisfaction demanded of MexicOj 
but no advantage to Guatemala resulted therefrom. 

The Mexican authorities based their action on a report, according to 
which the place in the territory of Guatemala where the municipal com- 
mission was, belongs to Mexico. 

In virtue of that report not only is no satisfaction given us, but satis- 
faction is demanded of us ; we are aggrieved, and are asked, to pledge 
ourselves not to commit any more offenses in future. 

Panfilo Roda, the alcalde of Tacana, a Guatemalan town, undertook, 
in conjunction with four other men, to take a list of the inhabitants of 
that place. The Mexicans arrested the enrollers, and took them to Tap- 
achula. The Government of Guatemala energetically demanded satis- 
faction ; its demand, however, was attended with no favorable result. 
Indeed, so far from being favorable, the result was an adverse one, for, 
as the territory occupied by Mexico constantly increases in extent, it 
was asserted that the town in which it had been attempted to enroll 
the inhabitants was a Mexican town. 

Don Carlos Gris claimed as Mexican territory a portion of land which 
has belonged to Guatemala from time immemorial. Complaint was 
made to Mexico in due form ; it was, however, followed by no result 
favorable to Guatemala, because Mexico had determined that that land 
should increase her territory. 



78 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Not only was justice uot done us in Mexico, but it was even declared 
that Guatemala was violating her pledges, and was actiug the part of 
an aggressor. 

Within the territory of Mexico revolutions are constantly going on 
against the frontier authorities ; the revolutionists seek refuge in the 
territory of Guatemala; the Mexican minister in Guatemala requests 
that they be interned {i. e., sent to the interior) ; his request is complied 
with by telegraph, the internment takes i)lace, and the Mexican repre- 
sentative returns his thanks therefor. 

The Mexican Government, however, instead of returningthauks, com- 
l^lains that the internment has not been ordered, and supposes that the 
failure to order it is due to the complicity of the Guatemalan authorities. 

There are districts which, from time immemorial, have recognized no 
authority save that of Guatemala; the people of those districts are now 
required to pay their taxes to Mexico ; the owners of property protest, 
but are forcibly compelled to pay ; complaint is made to Mexico, and 
the Government declares that those districts belong to Mexico, or that 
their ownership is doubtful, and that such being the case, they cannot 
be exempted from the payment of taxes. 

The mixed commission was busy with the survej^ of the frontier ; our 
engineers had the right to enter the so-called Mexican territory, as those 
of Mexico had the right to enter ours; but the frontier autliorities out- 
raged our engineers, and threw them into prison. The Government of 
Mexico very energetically demanded satisfaction of that of Guatemala, 
on the ground that the latter had invaded the territory of Mexico. 

This is what the invasion amounted to. The place called Tonintan^ 
has, from time immemorial, belonged to Guatemala. The Government 
of Mexico recently declared, on its own authority, that Tonintanii be- 
longed to Mexico; consequently to approach what is our own is invading 
Mexico. Parties of men enter our territory, without having any right 
to do so, and steal cattle ; our authorities attempt to recov^er the stolen 
animals, and this is considered by the Mexican frontier authorities as an 
insult to Mexico ; recourse is had to the federal Government, and that 
does not do us justice. 

Acts of this kind are of constant occurrence ; the offenses are re- 
peated, and Mexican encroachments upon our territory still go on. 

All this and much more that 1 have left unmentioned, in order not 
to make this note too voluminous, is proved by authoritative documents 
which I leave in the hands of Mr. Ubico, the minister of Guatemala at 
Washington. 

Something recently occurred that is considered alarming. In the 
message of the President of Mexico there are expressions which were 
offensive to Guatemala, and wholly inexact. It was said that Guate- 
mala seeks to defer the settlement of the questions, and to avoid hav- 
ing them defined, whereas the truth is quite the reverse, arbitration 
having been constantly proposed to Mexico, and that country having 
been recently told that there should not be two arbitrators, but one, 
and that that one should be selected by the Mexican Government, which 
I)ropositioii it did not see fit to accept. 

There has appeared in the unotficial portion of the ofiflcial newspaper 
ail article which I accept only in that part which declares that Mexico 
is treating us unjustly; for the article contains considerations of an his- 
torical character with regard to events on the frontier of the United 
States which I am unable to accept. 

That article was cDusidered offensive by General Loaieza, minister of 
Mexico, in Guatemala. He requested the Government to state whether 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA (^ 

the article in question reflected the views of the Government. He was 
informed in reply, that it expressed the views of the editor of the paper 
and not those of the Government, but that the latter indorsed that part 
of it which vindicated Guatemala from the charge of being unwilling- 
to have the questions defined, and of seeking to postpone their settle- 
ment. General Loaieza said that he would inform his Government, and 
that he would ask instructions from it, which proceeding was thought 
to embody a fresh menace. 

I have deemed it my duty to inform your excellency of all this in 
reply to ,your esteemed note of October 31, and I take pleasure in re- 
peating that 1 am, &c., 

LOEENZO MONTUFAE. 



Ko. 46. 
Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. 

[Translation. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

WASHiNaTON, November 7, 1881. (Eeceived Nov. 11.) 

Sir: On the 2d instant I had the honor to address to your excellency 
a note in relation to aflairs in Guatemala and Mexico. 

I had not at that time received the report presented to the Mexican 
Congress by Mr. Mariscal, the minister for foreign aflairs of that coun- 
try. That document contains statements which are offensive to Guate- 
mala, and which are not in accordance with historic truth. 

It is asserted that when the second extension expired, the mixed 
commission not having finished its work, the effects of the Uriarte- 
Yallarta convention legally ceased. This is a juridical truth which I 
am glad to have admitted by Mexico. 

I must, however, call your excellency's attention to what is said with 
regard to Guatemala's not having notified Mexico, as is customary in 
such cases. 

In the report on foreign relations presented to the legislature of Gua- 
temala in 1880 it was stated that the second extension was not suffi- 
cient for the completion of the surveys, and that if an extension was 
not asked for, the Uriarte-Vallarta convention would be considered as 
not existing. The report was approved by the legislature, and copies 
of it were sent to the minister of Mexico in Guatemala and to the de- 
partment of foreign relations of the Mexican Eepublic. Notwithstand- 
ing this, no extension was asked for. 

The extensions having absolutely expired, and no fresh extension hav- 
ing been asked for, it was declared that the second extension had ex- 
pired in order that the convention might be considered as having 
ceased to exist. 

This declaration, which was issued on the 10th day of December, 1880, 
was announced during an interview held at the department of state of 
Guatemala, to Mr. Diaz Mimiaga, charg6 d'affaires ad interim of the 
Mexican Eepublic. 

On the 11th of December of the same year the aforesaid declaration 
was transmitted to Don Manuel Herrera, envoy extraordinary and min- 
ister plenipotentiary of Guatemala in Mexico, that he might be able to 
furnish such information as the case required. 

The Uriarte-Vallarta treaty having become null and void, Mr. Mariscal 



80 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

says that General Loaieza, the minister plenipotentiary of Mexico, 
proposed a new convention to the President of Guatemala, and that 
the President thought favorably of the proposal, but that the conven- 
tion was not concluded. 

I do not know the real facts of this matter ; yet I must assure you 
that the President of Guatemala is now the constitutional head of the 
Government; that the constitution requires that international treaties 
shall be approved by the legislative branch of the Government, and that 
General Barrios never makes an offer the fulfillment of which depends 
upon another power. 

If what Mexico desires is that a survej^ of coasts and frontiers be made, 
she does not need the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty for such a purpose, and 
still less does she need a renewal of that instrument ; a simple exchange 
of notes is all that is required. 

The Government of the United States wished to have a survey of our 
seacoasts made, but it did not make any treaty with Guatemala with 
that end in view ; it simjjly wrote a note asking for authorization to 
have the survey made. A note was sent in reply stating that the sur- 
vey might be made, and it was made. 

Mexico may take, whenever it sees fit, the same course that was 
taken by the United States. 

Mr. Mariscal says that a party of ten men, under the command of 
Mr. Margarito Barrios, invaded the territory of Mexico, via Tonintana. 
This charge makes it appear as if the Guatemalan Government had 
committed a crime demanding expiation. Such, however, is not the 
fact. The district called Tonintana has always been respected as Guate- 
malan territory. Forces of our Government do indeed enter Tonintana, 
but that is not invading Mexican territory. The offense was committed 
by the Mexicans. They entered Tonintana, and compelled the inhab- 
itants to render service as Mexican citizens. The inhabitants, feeling 
aggrieved, addressed a complaint to the Government of Guatemala. 
Satisfaction was demanded of Mexico, and the federal Government 
declared that Tonintana belonged to Mexico, and that to enter it was 
to invade Mexico. The Government of Guatemala said that Mexico 
was not an authority competent to make a declaration contrary to the 
evidence, and that it is customary for nations, in such cases, to submit 
to arbitration, and not to seize at will upon territory that does not be- 
long to them. This remonstrance, like all those made by us, was treated 
with no attention. 

Mr. Mariscal states that in December, 1879, and in September, 1880, 
bands of Mexican and Central American filibusters invaded Mexico, 
committing great outrages in the territory of that country. There are 
many persons in Chiapas and Socouusco who cherish personal resent- 
ment and deep hatred against some of the public functionaries. These 
persons are continually on the move. 

No treaties exist between Guatemala and Mexico. The relations be- 
tween the two countries rest on the general principles of the law of 
nations. Guatemala is consequently not obliged to intern Mexican de- 
linquents taking refuge in her territory, and still less is she obliged to 
do duty as a jailer for the Mexicans. Nevertheless, for the sake of 
peace, and in order to show friendship to the Government of Mexico, 
she issued orders for all the internments that were asked of her. The 
orders were given by telegraph ; these orders were executed, and the 
parties interned asked leave of the Guatemalan Government to return 
to their own country, stating that they had no means of subsistence. 
The Government of Guatemala replied that they were subject to the 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 81 

orders of the representative of Mexico, and that they would not be al- 
lowed to return without his consent. This was doing more, much more, 
than was required by the law of nations. 

The telegrapliic orders for internment, which were sent in the pres- 
ence of the representative of Mexico, and their execution called forth 
a very warm expression of gratitude on the part of that representative. 

It is surprising that, notwithstanding all this, Mr. Mariscal should 
prefer charges against Guatemala for what he says took place in De- 
cember, 1879, and in September, 18S0. 

Investigations were held by order of the Government of Guatemala, 
and they rendered it evident that not a single Guatemalan had taken 
part in the events in question; that Mexicans were the sole actors in 
them, and that they were influenced by personal resentments which they 
cherished, either rightfully or wrongfully, against Mexican officials. 

The depositions taken show that mere local feelings, and nothing con- 
nected with the politics of the two countries, influenced the Mexicans 
thus to act against the said officials. 

If charges are to be made against Guatemala on account of every 
revolution in Chiapas and Socouusco, the charges will be incessant, for 
revolutions are of constant occurrence there, and it is in evidence that 
the revolutionists are supplied with abundant resources from their own 
country. 

I am sorry to remark that what is said in relation to the landmarks 
of Pinabete is wholly incorrect. The districts known as Ohichanar and 
Touintana have belonged to Guatemala fro-m time immemorial, and Gen- 
eral Santa Ana, the Dictator of Mexico, never thought that his juris- 
diction extended to them when he saw fit to violate the treaty of 1825 
and invade Soconusco. 

The Mexicans, by no authority save their own, without any notifica- 
tion or convention in the execution of their programme of encroaching 
upon our territory, placed a landmark in the district known as Pin- 
abete. 

If the placing of a landmark by Mexicans was sufficient to convert 
the territory of Guatemala into Mexican property, no boundary ques- 
tion would now exist, for the territory of Mexico would extend to Costa 
Eica. 

Our authorities were under no obligations to suffer that mark to re- 
main standing, since it was equivalent to a violent spoliation, without 
anything to justify it. The mark was consequently removed by the 
Guatemalan authorities of Tacaua. 

This act, then, was not, as is asserted by Mr. Mariscal, an invasion 
of Mexico by Guatemala, but an unauthorized invasion of Guatemala 
by Mexico. 

Mr. Mariscal says that the President of Mexico has protested ener- 
getically ; but he does not say that the Government of Guatemala, in 
reply to his protest, furnished evidence of its right. 

The secretary of state of the Mexican Eepublic says that Mexico can 
admit no question with regard to her ownership of Chiapas, including , 
Soconusco, for those districts which now form a state have belonged to 
her for years. 

This, Mr. Secretary, is a kind of public law that cannot be accepted. 
Dominion is acquired by titles which convey it, and force is not such a 
title. 

A treaty concluded in 1825 was binding upon both Mexico and Gua- 
temala. According to that treaty Soconusco was to remain neutral un- 
til the conclusion of a treaty defining the boundaries. 
H. Ex. 154 6 



82 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

lu the year 1842 General Santa Ana infringed that treaty by in- 
vading Soconnsco with an armed force and annexing it to Mexico. That 
act was a violation of right, and cannot be a legitimate title of owner- 
ship. 

What would become of the world if every nation could violate solemn 
treaties, invade the domain of weaker nations, seize their territory, and 
then allege that a proper sense of dignity did not permit them to sub- 
mit what was already done to arbitration f 

Since the year 1842 Guatemala has constantly protested against the 
usurpation of General Santa Ana; she has not admitted its legality for 
a single day, nor is there any instrument in existence that legitimizes it. 

The outrage perpetrated by Santa Ana, moreover, cannot be forgotten, 
for it is daily producing the saddest results. It awakened in Mexico a 
desire for aggrandizement, and although that Eei^ublic possesses vast 
territories which are neither inhabited nor cultivated, it seeks to ex- 
tend its limits southward, and to have its flag float over all Central 
America. 

Thus it is that a question between Guatemala and Mexico is never 
settled, and groundless accusations are piled up against us, similar to 
those contained in Mr. Mariscal's report. 

. There is now a serious prospect of war between Guatemala and Mex- 
ico. We shall never make war, and shall never provoke it ; the respon- 
sibility of shedding American blood shall not be on our heads; we shall, 
however, defend ourselves with energy and bravery; and so long as a 
hamlet or a cabin remains standing in Guatemala, the Mexican flag 
shall not float over it in peace. , 

The United States of America are the natural guardians of the soil 
of all America. Were it not for the United States, the Spanish-Amer- 
ican Eepublics would not now be independent. They are the natural 
protectors of the integrity of the continent, and history shows how nobly 
and worthily they have fulfilled their high mission. 

The Government of Guatemala addressed your excellency in this 
sense in June last, through Mr. Ubico ; I now do so again. 

The Government of Guatemala lays its question with Mexico in the 
hands of the United States Government. It declares that in whatever 
manner the United States Government may see fit to settle this matter, 
its decision shall be cheerfully, strictly, and faithfully executed. / 

I entertain the pleasing hope of receiving a favorable reply before 
the 20th instant, on which day a steamer sails from New York for As- 
pinwall. 



I avail, &Q. 



LORENZO MONTt^FAE. 



No. 47. 

Mr. Montufar to Mr. Blaine. 
[Translation. — Published lieretofore in Foreign Kelations.] 

Legation of Guatemala, 
Washington, N'ovemher 21, 1881. (Eeceived November 21.) 
Most Excellent Mr. Secretary of State : The undersigned, 
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary (on a special mission) 
of the Eepublic of Guatemala, has the honor to remind the honorable. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 83 

Secretary of State that the credential letter which he had the honor to 
present requests that full faith and credit be given to whatever he may 
say on behalf of the Government of Guatemala, v 

The undersigned, in view of that request, addressed to his excellency 
the Secretary of State a note bearing date of November 2, for the pur- 
pose of informing him, in a few words, of what had occurred between 
Guatemala and Mexico during a period which commenced before the 
establishment of the independence of both countries. 

On the same ground the undersigned addressed to his excellency the 
head of the Department of State his note of the 6th instant, the object 
of which was to point out the errors with regard to the relations between 
Guatemala and Mexico which were contained in the report presented 
by Mr. Minister Mariscal to the Mexican Congress, and likewise (and 
this very particularly) to place the boundary question in the hands of 
the United States Government. 

This is not the first time that this impartial Government has thus be- 
friended a Spanish-American Eepublic. Venezuela placed her dispute 
with France in the hands of the United States Government. The Amer- 
ican Government complied with the request of that little Republic, and 
a war was averted which would have been most disastrous to Venezuela. 

A war between Guatemala and Mexico is now imminent. Such a war 
will be a calamitous one, and its results cannot be foreseen. Guate- 
mala has but a million and a half of inhabitants; yet she is not alone : 
the little Republics of Salvador and Honduras are her allies. 

The undersigned has credentials from Salvador and Honduras, which 
he has not yet presented. 

Nicaragua is eminently Central American in feeling, and when there 
is danger of aggressions from without, she will become the ally of the 
threatened party, in order to maintain the integrity of what was once the- 
country of all Central Americans. 

The undersigned can say nothing just now with regard to Costa Rica^ 
because, although he is well aware of the friendly disposition of the- 
people of that Republic, he is not acquainted with the views entertained 
by Dr. Tomas Guardia. 

The war, then, will not be between Mexico and Guatemala alone, but 
between Mexico and the greater part of Central America. Guatemala 
alone can raise more than 20,000 fighting men. The first engagements 
will be disastrous to Mexico, and will perhaps cause a revolution in that 
Republic, in which there is a party and a portion of the press which are 
opposed to war, which desire peace, and which tell the Government that 
Its relations with Guatemala should be very different from what they are 
now. 

If the Mexican parties unite, however, Guatemala will resist as long 
as there is a cabin standing within her borders. 

The Government of the United States now has it in its power to save 
Mexico and Central America, as it saved Venezuela. If a proposition 
for settlement is offered by the Government of the United States, Guate- 
mala will accept it, considering it not as an attempt to assert power or 
to secure dominion, but as an act of kindness and sincere friendship. 

The undersigned hopes that the United States will render this addi- 
tional service to her neighboring Republics, and that the new world will 
hereafter thus have one more reason to feel grateful to this powerful 
Republic. 

Entertaining this pleasing hope, the undersigned has the honor to 
assure his excellency the Secretary of State that he is, &c., 

LORENZO MONTUFAR. 



84 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 48. 

Mr. Dbico to 31r. Frelinglmysen. 

[Translation. — Published heretofore in Sen. Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first 

session.] 

Legation of the Eepublic of Guatemala, 
Washington^ Febniary 3, 1882. (Eeceivecl February 3.) 

Sir: As various documents relative to the territorial question between 
Guatemala and Mexico are already on file in the Department of State, 
I now have the honor herewith to transmit to your excellency a copy of 
another, which I have recently received. 

I beg your excellency to be pleased to take this new document into 
consideration, that you may thereby be enabled to form an opinion as to 
the nature of Mexico's claim. 

I reiterate, &c., 

A. UBICO. 



[Abstract of the inclosure. ] 

X 

The accompanying document is signed by Fernando Cruz, minister of foreign af- 
fairs of the Republic of Guatemala, under date of November 24, 1881. It is addressed 
to General Francisco Loaieza, minister of Mexico in Guatemala, and its object is to 
transmit to General Loaieza a report received by the ^iresident of the council of state 
In refereuce to one Jos6 P6rez, assistant alcalde of the village of Touintauil,* held in 
■ confinement by Guatemala. It appears that Mexico has demanded satisfaction of 
Guatemala for the arrest of P6rez, and indemnity to him personally on the ground that 
he was a Mexican officer. (Guatemala charges him with treason.) A commission 
appointed by the Guatemalan Government presents this report on the subject to the 
council of state, in which it says that it sincerely desires that the right may prevail 
and justice be done, and that it believes Mexico will approve this view. 

The commission says that since the Mexican representative in that Republic has 
demanded the release of P^rez, &c., it is proper in the first place to inquire whether 
he is a citizen of Mexico or of Guatemala, and to which Republic the locality in which 
he was arrested belongs. The commission then states that Mr. P6i-ez is a legitimate 
son of A. and M. P6rez, and that he was born at TacauJi, in 1845. There is no doubt 
or dispute whatever that Tacan^ is a Guatemalan town, or that the parents of P^rez 
were Guatemalans. There is, moreover, no doubt whatever, that Vega del Volcan, 
the town in which he was arrested, belongs to Guatemala. This is stated in the in- 
dictment, and is admitted by P6rez himself. The latter was arrested for intriguing 
with the authorities of Soconusco, and for having co-operated with them in their at- 
tempts to induce the people of Tonintanii to refuse obedience to the authorities of 
Guatemala ; he is further charged with having encouraged a Mexican invasion of Ton- 
intan^. Although P6rez may allege that he has become a citizen of Mexico, yet Gua- 
temala has a right to consider him as one of her citizens whenever he appears in her 
territory, because, even supposing — which supposition is not admissible — that P6rez 
is a foreigner in Guatemala, he is, nevertheless, subject to the authorilies of that 
country as soon as he sets foot on its soil, and it is the duty of those authorities to 
hold him responsible for anj^ acts that he may have committed on a foreign soil to the 
detriment of Guatemala's territorial integrity. These are principles of international 
law which are recognized by all the nations of the civilized world. The commission 
then quotes from the writings of Bluntschli and otherst to show that every state is 
at liberty to decide by law what offenses are to be punishable within its territory, 
when such offenses have beeu committed by its subjects or citizens in a foreign coun- 
try, and that most nations have asserted in their laws the principle that their sub- 
jects may be punished for crimes so committed. The commission adds that Guate- 

*TonintaH^ is claimed by both Guatemala and Mexico. 
t Also from the penal code of Lower California. 



BOUNDAKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 85 

mala has good reason to complain of the Mexican frontier authorities who are con- 
stantly committing abuses against Guatemala and her citizens, which abuses it trusts 
that the general Government of Mexico will take measures to suppress. 

General Loaieza is informed in conclusion', by the Guatemalan minister of foreign 
affairs, that the report of the commission has been accepted by the council of state, 
by which body it has been submitted to the President of the Republic of Guatemala, 
who has approved it. The minister of foreign affairs trusts that General Loaieza and 
his Government will consider the report as fully justifying the position taken by Gua- 
temala. 



1^0. 49. 

Mr. Uhico to Mr. FrelingJmysen. 

[Translation.— Published heretofore in Senate Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress^ 

first session. ] 

Legation of the Eepublic of Guatemala, 
Washiiigton, February 4:, 1882. (Eeceived February 4.) 

Sir : The press, both American and foreign, in commenting upon cer- 
tain ofiQcial documents which have recently been published, seeks to 
show that reasons have arisen for changing the foreign policy of the 
United States, and this is an error which very generally prevails. 

The Senate has called for the correspondence relative to Central 
American affairs, including that which took place with the view of 
bringing about an amicable result of the territorial question with the 
Eepublic of Mexico. 

The publication of these new documents will confirm the aforesaid 
error ; I say error, because I am convinced that it has been designed 
merely to change the form and manner of carrying out the national 
policy towards the nations on the Pacific coast. 

As such matters, however, always reach foreign countries in an ex- 
aggerated form, and as this erroneous interpretation may give rise to 
consequences most disastrous to the nations of Central America, I beg 
your excellency to be pleased to transmit suitable explanations to Mr. Mor- 
gan, the American minister in Mexico, and to acquaint me with the sense of 
said explanations. 

I must inform your excellency that the Government of Guatemala, 
being actuated by a desire to terminate the present dispute, has informed 
the Mexican Government that it renounces its* rights to the territo- 
ries of Chiapas and Soconusco, aud that its declaration to that effect is 
contained in a draft of a definitive treaty which was presented to the 
Mexican Government by the diplomatic representative of Guatemala 
on the 14th of January last. 

By complying with the request contained in this note, your excellency 
will render a service to the just cause of the Central American nations, 
which will appreciate the good offices that you may see fit to interpose 
in behalf of their autonomy. 

With the assurances, &c., 

A. UBICO. 



86 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



Yl.— ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION ON THIS 

QUESTION. 

No. 50. 
Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelingliuysen. 

[Published heretofore iu Foreiga Relations.] 

Mexican Legation in the United States, 
Washington, March 9, 1882. (Received March 9.) 

Mr. Secretary: I have the honor herewith to send you a copy of a 
pamphlet printed in the English language, and containing various doc- 
uments and data relative to the boundary question between Mexico and 
Guatemala. 

You will see by these documents that the province of Chiapas, as long 
ago as September, 1821, voluntarily declared that it belonged to Mexico, 
and that, since that time, it has formed an integral part of the Mexican 
nation, it being declared in the Mexican constitution adopted February 
5, 1857, that the state of Chiaijas is an integral i)art of that Confedera- 
tion. 

The district of Soconusco is, and has been, an integral part of what 
was formerly the province, and is now the state of Chiapas, and has, 
with a slight interruption, shared the fortunes of that state, thus form- 
ing a part of the Mexican nation. 

The Government of Guatemala has officially recognized and admit- 
ted, although indirectly, on several occasions, that the state of Chiapas 
forms a part of Mexico, and yet it recently solicited the mediation of 
the United States in this matter, which mediation was offered to Mex- 
ico by a note signed b}^ the Hon. James G. Blaine, Secretary of State 
of the United States, and addressed to the Hon. Philip H. Morgan, 
United States minister in Mexico, under date of June 16, 1881. 

When the Government of Mexico informed the United States minis- 
ter residing at the capital of that country, as it did on the occasion of 
an interview held in the city of Mexico on the 9th of J\x\y following, 
that Mexico could not submit to arbitration her right to one of the 
states of the Mexican Confederation, since that was a fundamental 
point of her i)olitical existence decided by her constitution, the Hon. 
Mr. Blaine could not do otherwise than admit the force of this reason- 
ing, and in the communication which he addressed to Mr. Morgan on 
the 28th of Kovember, 1881, he said that the mediation of the United 
States was not offered for the purpose of deciding whether Chiapas and 
Soconusco formed part of the Mexican nation, but for that of settling 
the boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala on the basis 
that the state of Chiapas formed part of the Mexican Confederation. 

This principle (which, as I have already remarked, hiis been repeat- 
edly recognized by Guatemala herself) being accepted, the actual draw- 
ing of the boundary line between the former province of Chiapas and 
that of Guatemala, and between the Mexican states of Tobasco and 
Yucatan and the present Republic of Guatemala, would require a i)re- 
vious survey of that region, which is, to a great extent, uninhabited and 
unknown, and it would be impossible for such a line to be drawn unless 
such a survey should previously be made. 

Both Mexico and Guatemala have agreed to the appointment of a 
mixed commission to survey that region. That agreement was em- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 87 

bodied in a treaty which was concluded September 7, 1877, wherein 
Guatemala recognized, by implication, the fact that Chiapas is a part 
of the Mexican Confederation. 

The survey of the territory, through which the boundary line is to 
pass, being finished, it would be easy to draw that line, and probably 
Mexico and Guatemala would be able to reach an understanding on 
that subject. 

If this should unfortunately not be the case, and both nations should 
desire the appointment of an arbitrator or the mediation of a friendly 
nation, in order to settle the differences that might have arisen on this 
point, it would then be time to think of making arrangements to that 
end ; but to think at this time of deciding upon the proper course to be 
pursued in a hypothetical case, and one in which somewhat lengthy 
previous surveys would be required, would be, to say the least, wholly 
premature. 

I have, &c., 

M. ROMERO. 



DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Proposed Mediation of the United States. 

some official documents. 
jS'ew York: 1882. 

Document ISTo. I. 

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, No. 138, dated June 16, 1881, printed ante, Document 
No. 20. 

Document No. 1 1. 

CONFERENCE BETWEEN MR. P. H. MORGAN AND SR. DON IGNACIO MARISCAL. 

Printed as an iiiclosure to Mr. Morgan's dispatcli to Mr. Blaine, No. 247, dated Au- 
gust 5, 1881. (See Document No. 27.) 

Document Xo. III. 

THE QUESTION OF LIMITS BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

[Estracts from a pamphlet containing the correspondence exchanged in 1874 between the minister of 
Guatemala in Mexico, Mr. Eamon Uriarte, and the Mexican minister of foreign affiairs, Mr. Jos6 
Maria Lafragua. ] 

Printed as iuclosures Nos. 7 and 8 to Mr. Romero's note to the Secretary of State 
dated May 6, 1882, jjo-sf. Document No. 53. 

Document Ko. lY. 

SEAL OF THE MEXICAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. SECTION OF AMERICA. 

[Extract.] 

The minister of war lias transmitted to this Department, in a dispatch dated the 5th 
instant, a communication from the governor of Chiapas, dated the 1st of October last, 
in which he says that he transmits a copy, containing 14 pages, of the depositions 
made by the criminals, Samuel Palmer and Florencio Garcia, and of the investigation 
made concerning their statement that the President of Guatemala favors the filibust- 
ering projects organized in that republic against Mexico. 

From these documents it appears that Palmer and Garcia, the former a negro from 
Belize and the latter a Spaniaid, the manager of the coffee plantation of Don Joaquin. 



88 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



Cardenas, near El Rodeo, Guatemala, formed a part of the band of invaders who 
sacked the town of Tnxtla Chico on the night of September 20, 1880, Garcia having 
acted as second in command. In their depositions they stated, among other things, 
that the expedition in question was organized aud armed within the territory of Gua- 
temala, with the knowledge of the commander of Malacatan, Don Joaquin Velasco, 
who promised the leader, Faustino Cstrdenas, that he would offer no obstacle, and 
that the plan had for object to overthrow the existing authorities of the state of Chi- 
apas, and to proclaim Don Pantaleon Domiuguez ; that the plan as well as the pro- 
clamation signed by Victor Fougier, an exile in that republic, were printed in Guate- 
mala, but that these documents were thrown into a river when the invaders were 
overtaken by the Mexican troops sent in pursuit. Garcia added that they also car- 
ried a box with bombs, though he did not know for what purpose. 

in the record of the investigation made last March by the jvidge of first instance at 
Tapachula, appear the depositions of Dr. Charles E. Mordaunt, an American citizen ; 
Jos^ Maria Chacon, resident at Tapachula; Timoteo Leon, a Guatemalan by birth 
but Mexican by naturalization; and Juan Maria C'outiuo, resident at Tapachula. 

Mordaunt testified that he knows from the statements of several exiles and of some 
Guatemalans that the president of that republic has aided and continues to aid the 
revolutionists; that having seen the invaders of Tnxtla Chico at the time of their 
first incursion, he saw them again in the town of El Rodeo, Guatemala, engaged in 
trade with a capital furnished them by the President of Guatemala according to their 
own statement, and that he knows by the evidence of his own eyes that, on the two 
occasions when the Department of Soconiisco was invaded, the arms and ammunition 
employed belonged to the Guatemalan army, that several Guatemalans accompanied 
the Mexican invaders, all of whom, on their return, were not molested but were aided 
by the said president. 

Chacon testified that the President of Guatemala, Don Rufino Barrios, not only fa- 
vors the filibusters but furnishes them arms, ammunitiou, and even explosive pro- 
jectiles. This he knows from having been in December of last year at Costa Cuca, 
Guatemala, with Basilio Saenz, of Tapachula, a fugitive from justice for crimes not 
political. Saenz informed him that President Barrios had given bim $400 in cash, and 
loaned him .|3,000 for two years without interest, on condition that he would head a 
party of filibusters who should take possession of Soconusco, causing to be signed in 
the towns petitions in favor of annexation to Guatemala. This Chacon believes to 
be true, because Barrios himself has proposed to give the witness money aud ofiicial 
positions with the same object of annexing Soconusco to Guatemala; that it is a no- 
torious fact that President Barrios gives aid and comfort to all discontented Mexicans 
who arrive at his capital for political reasons, on condition of their taking up arms 
against Mexico, and that the week before last two small parties of Guatemalan sol- 
diers invaded Mexican territory near Cuatepec, having penetrated two leagues within 
the municipality of Ayutla. 

Timoteo Leon testified that it is true that President Barrios favors the filibusters 
who invade Mexico, which fact he knows because they are habitually organized and 
armed in Guatemalan towns in the presence of the authorities, who do nothing to im- 
pede them, although they have at their command the telegraph by which they might 
give information. 

Lastly, Coutino gives a similar opinion, based upon the fact that the filibusters 
themselves have publicly boasted of the protection given them by President Barrios, 
and that Faustino C.lrdenas, the leader in the sack of Tnxtla Chico, having been 
previously under arrest in Guatemala, was set at liberty in order to invade Mexico, 
and that, in all the attacks made upon Tnxtla Chico, the point of reunion of the in- 
vaders has been at San Vicente Cananti, very near the headquarters of the com- 
mander of Malacatan, Don Joaquin Velasco, who aided tliem with money and arms, 
all which is public and notorious by the admission of the filibusters themselves. 

This document concludes with a dispatch from the judge, in which he excuses him- 
self for the delay in sending the record of his investigation. 

(Signed) FELIX GALINDO, 

Chief of the Section of Amei'ica. 

Mexico, November 10, 188L 

Document ISTo. V. 

[A brief sumniary of the contents of a book published by Seiior Don Matiaa Romero, bearing the 
title "Refutation of the charges made against the citizen Matias Romero by the Government of 
Guatemala."] . 

Among the principal complaints made by the Government of Guatemala to the Gov- 
ernment of Mexico, respecting difficulties on the frontier of Soconusco, are those re- 
ferring to the conduct of Mr. Matias Romero during the first two years that he resided 
on that frontier. These complaints were embodied in three notes, dated April 9, 12, 
and 14, 1875, addressed to the Mexican minister of foreign afl'airs by the Guatemalan 



BOUNDAKY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 8 if 

representative iu Mexico, by order of General Jos^ Eufino Barrios, President of Gua-^ 
temala, and printed as appendices to the " Memoir of the Mexican Foreign Office," 
bearing date December 4, 1875. Although the references made by the Mexican min- 
ister to these complaints iu the memoir in question were perfectly conclusive as to the 
degree of importance which should be attached thereto, Mr. Eomero sought and ob- 
tained from the foreign office, under dates of July 31 and August 2, 1876, permission 
for the publication of an extended refutation of the Guatemalan charges, as an ap- 
pendix to the foreign office memoir of that year. This document, which was issued 
from the government press, consists of a quarto volume of three hundred and seventy- 
seven pages, of which one hundred and sixty-three are filled with Mr. Romero's ref- 
utation, and the remainder with eighty-three documents illustrative of the text. 

This volume bears the title ' ' Refutation of the charges made against the citizen Matias 
Romero by the Government of Guatemala." Mr. Romero, who is well known in the 
United States as the efficient minister plenipotentiary of Mexico during the war of 
intervention in that republic, was subseqviently for several years minister of finances 
under Presidents Juarez and Diaz, member of the Federal Congress, and postmaster- 
general, and was recently instrumental in the organization in the United States of 
the Mexican Southern Railway Company, under the auspices of General U. S. Grant^ 
who accompanied him to Mexico in the spring of 1881. 

Mr. Romero begins his refutation by an analysis of the charges made against him, 
which he divides into seventeen heads, each of which is separately considered. The 
volume is divided into three parts. Part I is entitled " A statement of my conduct 
in Soconusco in respect to General Barrios and Giiatemala." Part II consists of a 
" Reply to the charges made by General Barrios," and Part III is devoted to a con- 
sideration of the conduct of General Barrios toward Mexico, especially iu reference to 
the frontier qiiestion. 

At the outset Mr. Romero cites the language employed by the cJiief clerk of foreign 
affairs, Mr. Juau deDios Arias, inthethe "Meraoirof Foreign Affairs," bearing date De- 
cember 4, 1875, and that of his predecessor, the lamented statesman, Mr. Jos6 Maria 
Lafragua, in four notes addressed to the Guatemalan minister, Mr. Uriarte, under 
dates of July 4 and 8 and August 11, 1875, all relatiug to the said charges. These 
communications explicitly declare that such charges are unjust ; that they rest upon 
insufficient and erroneous data, and that they are expressed in terms unsuited to dip- 
lomatic correspondence. Tlie Government of Guatemala was therefore formaly in- 
vited to exhibit proofs of the said charges, which invitation, it is needless to remark^ 
was not accepted. 

Mr. Romero then narrates at length the circumstances attending his settlement iu 
Soconnaco. Having resigned the Mexican ministry of finance on June 10, 1872, just 
before the death of President Juarez, on account of seriously impaired health, he 
thought it necessary to devote himself to active agricultural labors. His attention 
had been previously attracted to the department of Soconusco, whose agricultural 
resources and capabilities for improvement he had already been instrumental in pro- 
moting by several fiscal measures and by the publication of a memoir devoted tO' 
that subject. During a visit which Mr. Romero made to Soconusco, in September 
and October, 1872, his favorable impressions were confirmed. He then made the ac- 
quaintance of General Jos6 Rufino Barrios, now President of Guatemala, making him 
a visit in Quezaltenango, and establishing with him relations of confidence and even 
intimacy. General Barrios was highly pleased at the proposed establishment of Mr. 
Romero on the frontier of Soconusco, where he possessed, in Mexican territory, a 
hacienda called Malacate, which he offered for sale. General Barrios accompanied 
Mr. Romero on his return to Tapachula, the capital of Soconusco, where, at the in- 
stance of the latter, public demonstrations were made in his honor. At the request 
of General Barrios, Mr. Romero wrote a series of comments upon the Guatemalan 
project of a constitution, then under discussion. 

As the result of this first visit to Soconusco, although his resources did not permit 
the purchase of the hacienda of Malacate, he resolved to establish himself near Tap- 
achula, giving his chief attention to the cultivation of India rubber. He arrived 
there definitively with his family in February, 1873, and in the following month made 
a visit to the capital of Guatemala. He found General Barrios provisionally in charge 
of the presidency, to which he was formally elected two months later. The general 
received Mr. Romero with the greatest cordiality, expressed a desire that he should 
settle within the territory of Guatemala, offered him the necessary resources for the 
purchase of lauds, and expressed a desire to become his pai'tner in establishing a n^w 
coffee plantation on Mexican public lands adjacent to his hacienda of Malacate and 
to the Guatemalan frontier. The latter proposal alone was accepted by Mr. Romero, 
and an unsigned contract was drawn up. The confidence of General Barrios was at 
this time carried to the extreme of intrusting Mr. Romero with the drawing up of a 
decree establishing religious liberty in Guatemala in conformity with Mexican ante- 
cedents, and with the preparation of one or more editorial articles in defense of the^ 
provisional government of Barrios. 



90 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Returning by land to Socouusco, Mr. Romero visited the /iacienrfa of Malacate to in- 
spect the lands proposed for the cofi'ee plantation, and then devoted himself to the 
formation of his own ludia rubber plantation, called the Hular de Zuchiate, on lands 
adjacent to the sea. In August, 1873, he again visited Malacate iu company with the 
government surveyor, and eifected the denouncement and survey of a tract of public 
lauds adequate for the contemplated coft'ee plantation to the north of Malacate, ad- 
jacent to the reputed frontier of Guatemala, but taking care that the lands in question 
should be exclusively on Mexican territory. Contracts were made with the laborers 
resident in the vicinity for planting corn and for clearing the land destined for the 
coffee plantation, to which the name of " Cafetal Juarez" was given. President Bar- 
rios was duly and minutely informed by letters of all the steps taken in pursuance 
of his repeated requests. 

In January, 1874, General Barrios visited his hacienda of Malacate and inspected, in 
■company with Mr. Romero, the lauds comprising the " Cafetal Juarez." He then ex- 
pressed a fear that a portion of those lands belonged to Guatemala, and indicated 
what he conceived to be the frontier between the two republics in terms differing 
from what had been assumed as such by Mr. Romero — namely, the course of the small 
river Petacalapa. As the result of his inspection of the lands. General Barrios with- 
drew from the proposed partnership, leaving Mr. Romero free to form the projected 
coffee plantation on his own account, under promise of efiQcacious co-operation from 
the Indian laborers resident within the frontier of Guatemala. 

During this visit of General Barrios to Socouusco he was informed that three Guate- 
malan exiles, residing at Tapachula, had formed a plot to assassinate him. Through 
the Intervention of Mr. Romero, those individuals were arrested and kept in prison 
for some weeks. They were afterwards liberated by the local judge, against the 
opinion of Mr. Romero, on the ground of lusuflBcient evidence. This circumstance 
highly displeased President Barrios, who habitually considered Mr. Romero responsi- 
ble for everything that passed in Socouusco. 

After the return of General Barrios, Mr. Romero continued his labors in the forma- 
tion of the coffee plantation called "Cafetal Juarez," counting upon the good-will of 
Barrios, repeatedly expressed in letters bearing date February and March, 1874. 
Various reports reached the ears of Mr. Romero that Barrios had stated that the said 
plantation was in Guatemalan territory, and that the cultivation should therefore not 
be permitted ; but the Guatemalan president denied iu his letters the truth of these re- 
ports. On the 9th of May, however, the alcaldes of the Guatemalan town of Tajomulco 
proceded to the "Cafetal Juarez," with two hundred Indians, and after reading an 
order from the political chief of San Marcos, Guatemala, cut down with their machetes 
all the young coffee trees, and carried oft' prisoners to Guatemala the two men in 
charge of the plantation, one of whom was kept four days in the public prison of San 
Marcos. Mr. Romero was naturally averse to believe that this destruction had been 
ordered by President Barrios. He immediately informed General Barrios by letter of 
the outrage committed on his estate, and received a prompt reply disavowing the act, 
And giving assurance that orders had been sent to the Indians in question to abstain 
from further molestation. 

The mayordomo of Mr. Romero, named Fermin Maldonado, on his return from his 
imprisonment in San Mtircos, received information that a party of the Indians who 
had committed the former outrage had again assembled iu a hiit at Altau^, within 
Mexican territory. Desirous to avenge the wrongs he had suft'ered, he collected eight 
or nine laborers from the coffee plantation, and made an incursion to Altan^. The 
Indians fled at his apj)roach, and he proceeded to burn down three huts and carry off 
four boxes of corn. He also caught one of the Indians of Guatemala, whom he sent 
prisoner to Tapachula, informing Mr. Romero by letter of what he had done. The 
huts were of the kind that may readily be constructed by three or four meu in a single 
day, and were accordingly valued at $1 apiece. The corn was estimated to be worth 
■$8. The total valuation of the loss was therefore eleven or twelve dollars, but the 
event figures in the charges made by General Barrios as the burning and sack of a 
Ouatemalan town. Mr. Romero was ignorant of this act of his mayordomo, which he 
at once condemned on receiving information thereof. He wrote to the political chief 
of San Marcos offering to pay the damage incurred, and subsequently wrote in similar 
terms to President Barrios, disavowing all responsibility for the act of his mayordomo. 

Meanwhile the Guatemalan exiles in Tapachula, three of whom had already been 
arrested, as before mentioned, for an alleged conspiracy against the life of General 
Barrios, were secretly preparing an invasion of Guatemala. The political chief of 
Tapachula, having received information of the fact, consulted Mr. Romero as to what 
should be done, and, by his advice, the leaders were arrested the same night. As 
there was not, however, sufficient legal evidence to justify their continued imprison- 
ment, Mr. Romero wrote out a legal opinion to the effect that the President of Mexico 
should be solicited to expel them from the republic as " pernicious foreigners." This 
opinion, doubtless, displeased General Barrios, who desired more efficacious measures 
to be taken. An order was subsequently obtained from the governor of the State of 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 91 

Cliiapas for sending the prisoners to the State capital, but Captain Tellez, in com- 
mand of a company of federal troops at Tapachula, refused to surrender them. The 
same officer co-operated with the prisoners respecting their projected invasion of 
Guatemala, seizing upon all the Guatemalan Indians in the vicinity to increase the 
ranks of his company. On the 27th of June the prisoners were allowed to give a ball 
in the house of Tellez, and, having intoxicated the federal troops, they were next 
morning placed under the orders of the Guatemalan exiles, nominally prisoners, for a 
filibustering expedition against Guatemala. They crossed the frontier the same day, 
committing various outrages and assassinations by the way, and on the following 
day were completely routed, near San Marcos, by Colonel Lopez, the political chief 
of that place, already mentioned. Three of the leaders were killed in action ; four 
others were taken prisoners and were executed at San Marcos two months later. An 
attempt was subsequently made by General Barrios to connect Mr. Eomero with this 
incursion. The facts were, that he had used all his influence to prevent its taking 
place, having even had an intervhiw with the Guatemalan exiles while prisoners, in 
which he endeavored to dissuade them from any step of the kind. Moreover, at the 
moment of the invasion, Mr. Romero was at San Marcos, Guatemala, where he had 
gone to see the political chief, Colonel Lopez, respecting the destruction of his coffee 
plantation, and he only escaped falling into the hands of the filibusters by the acci- 
dent of having taken a different road on his return. During this visit to San Mar- 
cos, Colonel Lopez avowed that the destruction of the "Cafetal Juarez" had been 
effected pursuant to orders of President Barrios, but he came to an understanding, 
apparently amicable, with Mr. Romero, as to the future conduct to be observed by 
both parties. 

Since Mr. Romero could not be proved to be directly responsible for the filibuster- 
ing expedition in question, General Barrios afterward undertook to hold him indi- 
rectly responsible, as having been the adviser of the sending of a Mexican federal 
garrison to Tapachula. It is true that, as early as September, 1871, before having 
visited Soconusco, Mr. Romero suggested, in an official document, the sending of such 
a force, and that, during the early part of his residence in Tapachula (September, 
1873), he repeated the suggestion. This was, perhaps, the cause of the sending of the 
first installment of federal troops, consisting of but sixty men, who arrived in Novem- 
ber, 1873. Unfortunately, through the ignorance and inaptitude of their commander, 
Captain Tellez, these men were, for the most part, seduced into the filibustering ex- 
pedition against Guatemala, as above mentioned. The plan of sending such a force 
had, however, been warmly approved by General Barrios in letters to Mr. Romero. 
After the events above referred to, Mr. Romero solicited the sending of a more numer- 
ous federal force, under an officer of greater intelligence and confidence. In fact, a 
small battalion of federal infantry was sent from Acapulco, under the orders of Lieut. 
Col. Antonio Ponce de Leon, and arrived in Tapachula early in September, 1874. That 
officer had instructions to repel any invasion of Mexican territory by Guatemalans — 
instructions, doubtless, due in part to the destruction of Mr. Romero's plantation, which 
had created considerable interest in Mexico, and had been the subject of two official 
investigations. Colonel Ponce de Leon naturally wished to become acquainted with 
the line generally considered as the actual frontier with Guatemala, and invited Mr. 
Romero to accompany him. With an escort of ten soldiers they visited, in November, 
1874, the " Cafetal Juarez," and adjacent localities, taking care not to pass the reputed 
frontier of Guatemala. Nevertheless, this reconnaissance gave great alarm to the 
frontier authorities of Guatemala, and was magnified by General Bari'ios into an out- 
rage against that republic. 

Previous to this event, and immediately after his return from San Marcos, in July, 
1874, Mr. Romero, in fulfillment of a promise made to Colonel Lopez, addressed com- 
munications to the municipalities of Tajpmulco and Sibinal, the authorities of which 
had participated in the destruction of his property. In these documents he gave his 
reasons for considering the lands in question to be Mexican territory, and, without 
entering further upon subjects of controversy, offered to pay the damages caused by 
the reprisals made by Maldonado at AltaujI. These documents were sent by the muni- 
cipalities to Colonel Lopez, at San Marcos, and by him to General Barrios. They 
elicited an angry reply from Colonel Lopez, in which the tenor of these documents 
was treated as an offense of sedition against Guatemala, which should be dealt with 
by the courts, and it was insinuated that Mr. Romero was an accomplice of the recent 
filibustering ex}^ -edition. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Romero had resolved to desist from the purchase of the lands form- 
ing the coffee plantation, but his agent in Mexico had already made payment of the 
price to the Government, and an oificial title had been issued to him in August, 1874, 
by which the Mexican Government became the guarantee that the lands were really 
Mexican territory. The possession of this document gave him an unquestionable 
right to Mexican protection, but he nevertheless resolved not to solicit such interven- 
tion, and to leave the territorial question to be decided by a treaty of limits. Conse- 
quently, he did not make any demand for diplomatic redress, nor even address any 



92 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

complaint ou tlie subject to the Mexican newspapers. From otlier sources, however, 
those paper's recei'^'ed information on the subject, an<l tlie members of Conj^ress from 
Chiapas spontaneously addressed a joint complaint on the subject to the ministry of 
foreign affairs. These publications and the complaint in question were wrongly 
attributed by President Barrios to direct efforts on the part of Mr. Romero, and caused 
great indignation on his part. In revenge, he caused to be written a letter from Gua- 
temala to the Mexican journal, the Monitor, in which the destruction of the coffee 
plantation was described as a very small affair, and Mr. Romero was represented as a 
heartless speculator in international dissensions. In reply to this letter Mr. Romero, 
for the first time, addressed to the Monitor his own version of the facts, taking care, 
however, not to inculpate General Barrios, to whom he sent a copy. At the same 
time, he complained to General Barrios, by letter, of the attacks made upon him in 
the press, ami received a reply in which the President of Guatemala explicitly denied 
all knowledge thereof, and expressed his full contidence and esteem, as was his custom. 
Until February, 1875, General Barrios, in his frequent letters upon business affairs, 
continued to write in similar terms, so thac Mr. Romero was temporarily satisfied of 
the loyalty of his friendship. 

At the close of 1874 the Indians of Tacana, Guatemala, destroyed the boundary- 
post of Pinabete, and erected another at Cuilco Viejo, 8 leagues to the south. By 
order of Colonel Ponce de Leon it was replaced in February, 1875, the new one being 
destroyed. A few days later the Indians again destroyed the boundary-post. It was 
a second time replaced in March, and w^as soon afterwards destroyed a tbird time. 
Although Mr. Romero had no share in the acts of the federal commander, and was 
absent from Tapachula at the time of the second expedition to re])lace the boundary- 
post, he was held responsible in Guatemala for ail that had occurred, and even charged 
with having intoxicated Colonel Ponce de Leon, in order to persuade him to violate 
the territory of Guatemala. In point of fact Mr. Romero declined a written invita- 
tion from the said colonel to accompany him on the expedition in question, and gave 
an opinion against the proposed replacement of the boundary-post. 

In February, 1875, there was established at Tapachula, by the efforts of Mr. Romero, 
a printing press, from which was issued under his direction a small weekly journal, 
the Soconuscense, of which only twenty numbers were issued. No attack upon Gua- 
temala or upon President Barrios ever appeared in its columns, where the boundary 
troubles were spoken of with extreme moderation. Nevertheless, the ofScial journal 
of Guatemala subsequently accused Mr. Romero of having published therein a multi- 
tude of lies and calumnies intended to promote a rupture between Mexico and Gua- 
temala. Mr. Romero's contributions to that paper were few, and were signed by his 
name. 

In January, 1875, Mr. Romero learned that ten Guatemalan Indians, who had been 
working on liis coffee plantation, had been carried off prisoners by the authorities of 
the neighboring Guatemalan village of Toquian, for the crime of having dared to 
work there against their orders. Mr. Romero at once started for tlie plantation, and 
on the following day Colonel Ponce de Leon, hearing of the case, set out for that 
plantation with eighty men of the federal troops. Mr. Romero met him on his return 
two days later, and persuaded him to turn back without having reached the frontier. 
Nevertheless, this incident was represented by order of General Barrios as a new out- 
rage committed upon Guatemalan territory. 

In April, 1875, Mr. Romero left Tapachula for Mexico, to take his seat in Congress 
as deputy for Soconusco. Soon after his arrival he learned that the Guatemalan 
minister, Don Ramon Uriarte, had addressed to the foreign office three communica- 
tions, by order of President Barrios, accusing him of being an incendiary, a plun- 
derer, a filibuster, &c. As the facts upon which these charges are based have all 
been presented in the preceding narrative of Mi". Romero's residence in Soconusco, it 
is unnecessary to consider these charges in detail, as Mr. Romero does in the second 
part of his refutation. 

In the third part of that document, Mr. Romero, turning the tables upon his ac- 
cuser, produces formidable evidence to show the despotic and unprincipled character 
of the ruler of Guateujala, his cruelty toward the laboring classes of Guatemala, the 
utter lack of guarantees ou the part of the unfortunate resdents of that republic, the 
duplicity of General Barrios as a part of his methods of government, his unbounded 
ambition, and especially his fixed design, long since formed, of disputing the Mexi- 
can title to Soconusco and Chiapas. In this publication, bearing date in 187(5, is cor- 
rectly predicted and outlined (pages 158-161) the hostile conduct recently observed 
by Guatemala toward Mexico in regard to the question of limits. It is very remark- 
able that the recent attempt on the part of Guatemala to obtain the intervention of 
the United States should have been indicated five years ago in this document, which 
must be well known to General Barrios, though the Government of the United States 
is hitherto probably quite ignorant of its existence. Says Mr. Romero : 

" It (the Government of Guatemala) has gone so far as to imagine that, in case of 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 93 

a war, Guatemala might celebrate a treaty of alliance -with the United States, with 
the object of carrying on a joint war against Mexico and dividing between them the 
spoils. It would not be strange, much less impossible, that, under certain circum- 
stances, which are fortunately not probable at this time, the United States might 
wage against Mexico another war as unjustifiable and as disastrous as that of Texas; 
but whoever knows the position occupied in the world by the United States, the 
essential difi'erence between the policy of their Government and that of Guatemala, 
the national pride of their people, and various other circumstances, which I consider 
it unnecessary to enumerate, will come to the conclusion that, if unfortunately the 
United States ever declare war upon Mexico, they will do it for motives of their own 
and not for those of any other nation ; in their own name, and not as allies of Guate- 
mala. It is really the height of blindness to imagine that Guatemala, by stimuiat- 
iug the greed of the United States, could drag them so low as to convert them into 
an appendix to herself!" 

Yet this apparently is what the Government of Guatemala attempted to do in the 
summer of 1881, from which attempt she did not desist, even upon the advent of the 
administration of President Arthur. 

PRINCIPAL EVENTS AFFECTING THE EELATIONS BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

1821. February 24. — Plan of Iguala, by which General Iturbide proclaimed the inde- 
pendence of Mexico. 

1821. September 3. — Adhesion of Chiapas to the j)lan of Iguala, and proclamation of 
annexation to Mexico. 

1821. September 8. — Oath of independence from Spain taken by authorities of Chia- 
pas. 

1821. September 15. — Guatemala declares her independence from Spain. 

1821. September 26. — Chiapas declares her absolute separation from Guatemala. 

1821. September 27. — Entry of Iturbide into the city of Mexico, and formation of a 
provisional government. 

1821. October 22. — Chiapas demands of Mexico the recognition of her separation from 
Guatemala. 

1821. November 12. — The Government of Mexico accepts the annexation of Chiapas. 

1822. January 5. — Guatemala signs an act of union with Mexico. 

1822. January 15. — The regency of Mexico proclaims the perpetual incorporation of 
Chiapas into the Mexican Empire. 

1822. February 4. — Formal incorporation of Guatemala into the Mexican Empire. 

1823. Guatemala separates from Mexico. 

1824. May 3. — Soconusco, lawfully represented in the supreme junta of Chiapas, 

voted freelj- for her annexation to Mexico. 
1824. May 26. — The Congress of Mexico issues an act declaring the liberty of Chiapas 

to annex herself either to Mexico or Guatemala. 
1824. September 12. — Chiapas, by the free vote of the majority of its inhabitants, 

solemnly ratified its final incorporation to Mexico, and in the first Mexican 

constitution was named as part and parcel of the latter republic. 

1824. September 12. — Solemn declaration that Soconusco was included in the province 

of Chiapas, and united with it to Mexico. 

1825. January 25. — Guatemala proposes with its troops to occupy Tapachula (Socon- 

usco). 
1832. Guatemala violates with her troops the territory of Soconusco. 
1832. The Mexican Government sends to Guatemala a minister to settle the question 

of boundaries, but without efi^'ect. 

1839. Guatemala manifests the intention to include Soconusco in one of her states. 

1840. The alcalde of Tapachula (Soconusco) asks protection from Mexico against 

Guatemala. 

1842. Mexico occupies Soconusco with its troops, in virtue of the solicitations of its 
inhabitants, of the free vote cast on the 3d of May, 1824, and the declaration 
of the 12th of September of the same year. 

1842. The Guatemalan Government, through the British consul in Guatemala, applies 
to the English Government for mediation. 

1842. October 10. — The English minister in Mexico, without instructions from his Gov- 
ernment, inquires of the Mexican Government whether English mediation 
would be favorably received, and the Government of Mexico answers tliat 
there is no need therefor, as Soconusco is clearly a part of the Mexican pos- 
sessions. 

1853. The Mexican Government sends another minister to Guatemala for the settle- 
ment of the question of limits, but without success, in consequence of the op- 
position of Guatemala. 



94 BOUNDAEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

1854. The Guatemalan Government manifests a disposition to renounce its alleged 
rights to Chiapas aufl Soconusco, but on condition that Mexico should recog- 
nize in its favor the debt of that province; which Mexico declined to do in 
1875, alleging that the debt, if any, should be recognized in favor of private 
creditors and not of the Guatemalan nation. 

1873. October 20. — The Mexican Government declares that it cannot enter into any 

discussion on its right to Chiapas and Soconusco. 

1874. May 7. — Guatemalan Indians destroy Mr. Matias Romero's coffee plantation, 

situated in Mexican territory. 

1875. February. — Residents of Guatemala destroy the boundary mark called "Pina- 

bete," and build another near Cuilco Viejo. 

1877. September 7. — A convention is concluded in Mexico creating a joint commission 

of Mexican and Guatemalan engineers, in order to study the dividing line of 
the two countries on the eastern limit of Soconusco and Chiapas, with which 
Guatemala implicitly recognized that the rights of Mexico to the state of 
Chiapas were out of question. 

1878. October. — A band, headed by Margarito Barrios, a Guatemalan officer, invades 

the Mexican territory at the point called " Tonintanji." 

1879. December 17. — Thirty-iive filibusters coming from Guatemala attack the Mexi- 

can village Tuxtla Chico. 

1880. Sei)tember. — Another band, consisting of forty filibusters from Guatemala, sur- 

prise again Tuxtla Chico. 

1880. December. —The political chief of San Marcos (a department of Guatemala), at 

the head of two hundi-ed men, invades Mexico, destroys the Pinabete bound- 
ary mark, erects another one several leagues within Mexican territory, and 
hoists thereon the Guatemalan flag. 

1881. June 16. — The Secretary of State addresses a note to the American minister in 

Mexico, saying that the Government of the United States, at the request of 
Guatemala, oifers its mediation on the question of limits. 

1881. July 9. — Conference of the American minister in Mexico with the Mexican sec- 
retary of state on the proposed mediation of the United States. 

1881. July 25. — Memorandum by Mr. Mariscal on said conference. 



No. 51. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Romero. 

[Published heretofore in Senate Ex. Doc. 156, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, March 24, 1882. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 
the 9th instant, in which you set forth the views of your Government 
touching the pending questions between the Mexican United States and 
the Republic of Guatemala. 

I have given consideration to your statements, and remark that this 
Government, as you observe in substance, has not put itself forward as 
the advocate of any determinate solution of the issue between the two 
Governments. The intelligence which the President received pointed 
to the imminence of a collision between Mexico and Guatemala, which, 
as a duty imposed upon him by the friendship of the United States for 
both the parties, he desired to avert by the suggestion of pacific coun- 
sels, including, as was meet, that of arbitration if the difficulty could 
not be disposed of by other means. It is with feelings of relief that the 
President learns that the channel to a peaceful agreement lies open to 
both nations. 

Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration. 

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 95 

No. 52. 
Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 
[Translation.] 

Legation of Mexico, 
Washington^ April 29, 1882. (Eeceived May 1.) 
Mr. Secretary : 

I have the honor herewith to send you a printed copy of the speech 
delivered by the President of the United States of Mexico, at the open- 
ing of the present session of the federal congress of Mexico on the 1st 
instant, in which you will see that I have marked the paragraphs re- 
ferring to the pending difficulties with Guatemala by reason of the 
boundary question between the two countries. You will also observe 
that these paragraphs are in entire conformity with the statements 
made by me in the note which I had the honor to address to you in 
reference to this matter on the 9th day of March last. 
I have, &c., 

M. EOMERO. 



[Inclosure.] 

pkesident's message. 

Gentlemen op the Chamber of Deputies and Senators ; * * » The 
good harmony which has for some time past existed between Mexico and the foreign 
powers with whom she has relations has been preserved, and has increased, and we 
receive from them frequent evidences of their friendly feeling towards us. 

Our relations with Guatemala continue in the same condition they were in when I 
gave you an account of them in September last. 

When treating of interests of such magnitude it is prudent, without neglecting 
them, to leave to time that natural influence which it sometimes advantageously ex- 
ercises in bringing complicated questions to a solution. 

I must, therefore, for your information, as well as for that of Mexico and of the Gov- 
ernments of Central America, explain clearly and succinctly what are the aspiration* 
of my administration in our difficulties with Guatemala, and I hope that you will not 
deny to me the co-operation necessary to bring them to an end. 

Perhaps the circumstance that in former times some of the republics which are 

grouped together in the center of the continent, formed part of the Mexican nation^ 
as given rise to the idea that our republic, stimulated by its actual condition of 
tranquility and progress, wishes to possess itself, in whole or in part, of these polit- 
ical entities, which are now sovereign and independent, and annex them to our own 
territory — a lamentable error which might alienate from us the sympathy of the 
people thereof, from whom no conflict separates us, and with whom we desire to cul- 
tivate and strengthen, if possible, the most disinterested friendship. 

When we possess a territory of the greatest richness, washed by two oceans, capa- 
ble of supporting in prosperity a population of 100,000,000, it would be insensate in 
us to attempt the conquest of those countries, from which we are separated by great 
distances, and we would unceasingly repel in them those proper sentiments of liberty 
and indeiiendence which are as firmly rooted in their soil as they are in our own. 
And I solemnly declare to Congress, and to the nation which it represents, that my 
administration has no other views with reference to the questions which now exist 
with the southern republic, than the defense of the territory and dignity of Mexico, 
and looks only to the establishing of a well-defined boundary which will be adopted 
by a common accord between Mexico and Guatemala. If the Government of that 
country will renounce the unrealizable idea of reoccupying Chiapas and Soconusco, 
or of obtaining an indemnity for supposed damages for having been despoiled of the 
same, the sincerity of the policy which in these few words I have indicated would be 
soon made apparent. 



S6 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 53. 

Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Trauslatiou.] 

Legation of Mexico, 
Washington, May 6, 1882. (Received May 11.) 
Mr. Secretary : 

I have read with interest a copy just received of the docuineuts ema- 
nated from that Department referring to the difticulties existing between 
Mexico and Guatemala, which the President of the United States sent 
to the Senate with his message of the 17th of February .of this year in 
response to a resolution of that Chamber of the 30th of the preceding 
January, asking for the correspondence on this matter. 

Although those documents refer to questions which affect Mexico and 
Guatemala in a direct manner only, should the Government of the United 
States wish to form an exact opinion thereon without having anything 
but the reports on the subject, which are consigned in said documents, 
it would lack, in my opinion, the necessary data to be acquainted with 
them in all their incidents and details. 

The last two representatives of Guatemala at Washington have cer- 
tainly communicated to that Department inaccurate reports concerning 
those questions which are in open contradiction with historical facts, as 
can be demonstrated by means of documents and irrefragable proofs. 

These reports have unfortunately been supported and maintained by 
the last representative of the United States in Guatemala, and this cir- 
cumstance gives them more importance than they could otherwise have. 

It is true that when the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of 
the Senate asked you if there was any objection in printing said corre- 
spondence, you fairly and impartially thought fit to add thereto the note 
I addressed to you the 9th of last March on the same subject, present- 
ing, although in a very brief and superficial manner, Mexico's views upon 
it ; but as the information contained in that note is not sufficient either 
to duly appreciate this question, I have thought proper to lay our views 
before you in a more detailed and comi)lete manner. 

As the Government of the United States has to a certain extent ad- 
mitted, on the other hand, the manifestations made on the subject by 
one of the interested parties, it seems proper and natural to afford them 
an opportunity of hearing the other side, and that is the object of the 
present note, wherein I propose to relate, with all possible conciseness, 
but without omitting any substantial fticts, the events which have given 
rise to the boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala. 

I will not, however, follow in this relation the line marked out by the 
representatives of Guatemala, but, leaving it entirely aside, I will 
relate with complete impartiality the historical facts such as they hap- 
pened, stating places, dates, the names of the prominent persons that 
participated therein, and drawing the consequences derived therefrom, 
as this seems to be, in my opinion, the only proper manner of speaking 
of questions dating so very far back and containing some incidents 
which comj)licate them. 

I will not occupy myself, either, in proving each one of the many in- 
accuracies contained in said reports, because this would lead me off from 
the main object of this communication, and because a simple, truthful, 
fair, and impartial relation of the events is the most conclusive, although 
indirect, that can be given to said reports and manifestations. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 97 

Our ancient history furnishes data to believe tliat even at the begin- 
ning: of tlie sixteenth centnry Chiapas and Soconusco belonged to the 
Mexican Empire and that Moctezunia II carried his arms in 1505 as far 
as Nicaragua. I mention this fact because although it has no direct in- 
fluence in the present matter, it is a proof against the immemorial i>os- 
session which Guatemala maintains to have enjoyed, showing that there 
was a time so far back when that possession was interrupted. 

After the Mexican Eini)ire was conquered by the Spaniards Chiapas 
and Soconusco remained for the first few years subject to the colonial 
rule, as parts of New Spain. Both provinces were afterwards aggre- 
gated to Guatemala, which figured also for some jearsas a province of 
Mexico, till she finally established her audiencia. 

These changes are of no significance whatever ; as the whole continent 
being then ruled by Spain, the aggregation of one province to another 
was simply for the object of facilitating its administration, without cre- 
ating thereby new nationalities nor granting new rights to him who 
thought to have them over the whole country. It is to be noticed, how- 
ever, that Soconusco was considered, even during the colonial rule, as 
a government; that is, it was not made part of any of the other frac- 
tions composing the kingdom of Guatemala, till its importance having 
diminished on account of the abandonment in which it was left, it 
was reduced to a district of the intendeucy of Chiapas. It has there- 
fore been demonstrated that Chiapas and Soconusco belonged to Mex- 
ico and that Soconusco formed part of Chiapas at least since 1790. 

The independence of Mexico having been i)rochiimed for the second 
time in 1821, Chiapas was the first province of what was called the 
kingdom of Guatemala which made known its separation from Spain 
and its union to Mexico on the 3d day of September, proclaiming, on the 
8th, its indei)endence in the most solemn manner. This act, performed 
with the most complete liberty, is the first ground of the rights of Mex- 
ico; the observation which has some time been made concerning the 
duty of Chiapas to act in accordance with Guatemala being of no value 
whatever. When the province of Chiai)as broke the link which sub- 
jected her to Spain, she recovered the full exercise of her independence, 
and by use of a perfect right incorporated herself to the Mexican Em- 
pire, as the other ])rovinces of the general captaincy did, and as Gua- 
temala herself did at last. Nobody doubted the riglit which she had to 
proclaim herself independent and call for a congress, nor that which 
Salvador performed in order to oppose her union to Mexico, even after 
that of the other provinces had taken place. Guatemala usurped, there- 
fore, rights which 'were not hers, when she included Chiapas in her act 
of union to Mexico, sigued on the oth of January, 1822, since she con- 
fesses, in that same document, that Nicaragua, Comayagua, and Chi- 
apas had been entirely separated from her. 

In view of the dilierence which was noticed between the conduct of 
Chiapas and that of Guatemala, which latter, on ])roclaiming her inde- 
pendence on the 15th of September, 1821, constituted herself as a separate 
nation; the authorities of Chiapas declared again its separation from 
Guatemala on the 2Gth of the same month, and on the 22d of October 
appointed a commissioner to go to Mexico to further the complete sepa- - 
ration from Guatemala, even in case the latter should submit herself to 
the Mexican Empire. This is the second ground of the rights of Mexico, 
(luclosure No. 1.) 

In consequence of such repeated proofs of adhesion, the governmen- 
tal Junta of Mexico decreed, in a meeting held on the 12th of Novem- 
ber, 1821, to ofier to the province incorporated to the empire and to the 
H. Ex. 154 — -7 



98 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Others (from Guatemala) which might afterwards do tlie same, all the 
protection demanded by their voluntary adhesion to onr Government, 
without compromising the places which may be willing to follow another 
course. 

This i)hrase is the clearest ])roof of the fairness of Mexico, since it 
shows that she di<I not i)retend to use either Ibrce or intrigue, and that 
she considered only the free will of the ])eoi)le. It is to l»e noticed, how- 
ever, that good a many of the other villages which had belonged to 
Guatemala had made already public its adherence to JMexico, congratu- 
lating General Ytnrbide and the junta. These noteworthy documents 
are contained in the record of the ])roceedings thereof. One of these,, 
and peihaps the one that attracts the most attention, is the letter of 
Lieut. Gen. Carlos Urrutia, who was then, in 1821, President of Guate- 
Diala, "ottering his respectful homage to the sovereign junta and solicit- 
ing its ]»r()tectinn, in order that the province of Guatemala should be in- 
corporated to the em]nre." This was communicated to the junta on the 
loth of December, 1821, and this body, after a report rendered by a 
committee, decided to answer Mr. Urrutia "Tiiat His Majesty applaud- 
ing his good wishes, abstains himself from taking the steins indicated 
by Guatemala, as they are not in conformity with the liberal priiii-iples 
which direct his course." This answer needs no jjraise, as what is 
Doble and worthy exalts itself. 

The decision of the 12th of November, 1821, was i)ublished as a law 
by the regency on the 16th of January, 1822, declaiing that Chiapas 
was loiever incorporated to the emjjire. This solemn declaration, 
against which Guatemala made no protest in those days, is the third 
ground of the rights of Mexico, which acted, as has been seen, with so 
much circumspection and loyalty in this grave matter that she does 
not deserve the qualitications which have sometimes been made of her 
conduct. 

The first official expression of Guatemala appears in the record of the 
meeting held on the lOth of January, 1822, in which the congratulation 
of the ])resident of that audience was communicated to the gov^ern- 
niental junta. On the first of February the act of sul)mission and ad- 
hesion to the emi)ireof the municipality of that city w^as communicated 
to the junta, and on the 4th the notice of the Guatemalan Government 
and the acts and proclamations made on the occasion of its in(;or|)ora- 
tion to the empire, by virtue of the declaration of its provisional junta and 
of the consent of an absolute majority of its citizens, were read. Nic- 
arajiua, Honduras, and Costa liica were then alrea(ly incorpora'ed to 
Mexico. It must be borne in mind that some of these i)rovinces had ex- 
pressly asked their complete separation from Guatemala; only Salvador 
remained. 

The Government of Mexico was so scrupulous in all that relates to 
Guatemala that it, being impossible for the deputies of those provinces 
to be present at the meeting of Congress, on the 24th of February de- 
cided that a junta of natives or residents of Guatemala should elect 
substitutes, in order that the i)eople which had joined the empire would 
be repiesented. The substitutes thus elected remained in Congress 
until the regular ajipoiutees presented theniselves, one of whom, Mr. 
Jos6 del Valle, was the second minister for foreign affairs; a new token 
of consideration given to the citizens of that part of the nation. 

As it is consequently impossible to disown the autlienticity of the 
documents above mentioned, to deny the reality of the facts i elated, to 
at least interi)ret such manifest intentu)ns, or to disfigure such explicit 
resolutions without iutentioually closing one's eyes so as not to see the 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA, 99 

truth, no doubt can either be had of the legality of the union of Chia- 
pas to the Mexican Empire. We will now see how that union was rat- 
ified. 

The overthrow of General Ytnrbide's throne in March, 1823, opened 
the door, as it was natural, to different pretensions, a necessary result 
of the new ideas which Vvcre buddiuj? tbroughoat the country. Guate- 
mala and the other provinces separated themselves, and Mexico, far 
from opposing it, favored, the organization of that new society. Chia- 
pas was at tirst wavering; a party, urged and sustained by Guatemala's 
agents, proclaimed its union to the same; another maintained its union 
to Mexico, and feelings of complete independence were not lacking. A 
supreme junta was organized, which was solemnly recognized by the 
Mexican Government. (Inclosure No. 2.) 

Exaggerated reports concerning the situation of Chiapas brought 
about the dissolution of that assembly on the 4th of September, 1823; 
apian of free Chia])as was issued; forces were raised, meetings were 
promoted — in sum, the province was for two months involved in the 
most complete confusion, until Colonel Codallos, in view of the edict 
and of the order of the Mexican Government, dated September 3 of 
same year, "to leave things in their present condition, so that the 
province would proceed with absolute liberty," agreed in the re estab- 
lishment of the junta on the 30th of October of said year, and on the 
the 4th of November withdrew from Chiapas in order that it might be 
left to herself to act with entire freedom on the ])art of Mexico. It is 
not true, therefore, as has been said, that the junta was re-established 
after the withdrawal of the trooi)s, who were only one hundred men of 
the Second of infantry and thirty of the Seventh of cavalry. 

The assembly, on communicating its reinstallation to the supreme 
executive power of Mexico, in a note dated November the 10th, 1823, 
calls Colonel Codallos " well deserving of the country," and uses these 
expressive words : "The province entertains great and eternal grati- 
tude to the illustrious chief, who, convinced of the general will of the 
people, respected it aud did not wish to soil the luster of his arms." 
The Mexican chief recognized the assembly, which commenced its labors 
without any kind of pressure, as the Government had ordered the with- 
drawal of the troops since the 29th of May, leaving only the local 
forces, which, in Tuxtla, were influenced by the partisans of the annex- 
ation to Guatemala. It is, then, shown that if any fear was ever en- 
tertained for a moment that Chiapas would not have any freedom, it 
disappeared entirely with declarations and acts as solemn as they were 
sincere. 

The Mexican Congress, not being satisfied with the liberty in which, 
in fact, it had left Chiapas, gave the last proof of its fairness by issuing 
a decree, on the 2Gth of May, 1824, declaring that Chiapas was free to 
decide its aggregation, suggesting for that purjiose the meeting of a 
congress to resolve in three months such an important matter. 

With the worthy object of affording perfect liberty to the representatives 
of Chiapas, the Mexican Government proposed, on the 26th of May, 1824, 
to that of Guatemala to withdraw from Chiapas all the troops that were 
there; todeposit thearmsof those of Mexico in tothehandsof the munici- 
pality of Ciudad Real, now called San Cristobal las Casas, and to situate 
fivehundredmenofeachnationontherespective frontiers. Guatemalaop- 
posed all these measures on theground that they deprived the juutaof Chi- 
apas of due liberty, and although the withdrawal of the Mexican troops was 
alone carried out, the Government of Guatemala insisted in its denial, 
alleging that the intelligence that the forces were to be stationed on the 



100 BOU>!DARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

frontier was enouj;b to i)revont there being thedesired liberty at the polls. 
The most noteworthy thing she did was to protest against the with- 
drawal of tlie Mexican troops, when some of those of Guatemala remained 
in Chiai)as. IS^o Mexican troops were, at the time in which the supreme 
junta declared its aggregation, in tins province or outside it for many 
leagues. With a vie w of avoiding that, the opinion of the representatives 
of Chiapas would be unduly inHueuced, the Mexican Government ap- 
pointed a commissioner to be present at the Junta, and invited Guate- 
mala to do likewise. The two nations wouhl in this way be witnesses 
of the legality of that supreme resolution. Guatemala refused its con- 
sent, notwithstanding that the junta informed it, on the 4th day of 
August,1824, of the arrival of the Mexican commissioner, alleging that nei- 
ther of the two nations ought to interfere in the decision. Mexico never 
pretended to interfere ; she only wanted to avoid another kind of inter- 
vention, in order that the jnnta,in the presence of the two nations, might 
proceed as it best suited them. The Mexican Government did then all 
it could to remov e all motives of complaint. These acts, maliciously In- 
terpreted, were then, however, and are yet the foundation of Guatemala's 
protests. (Inclosure No. 3.) 

The junta of Chiapas ordered registers to be opened in all the districts 
which, without any pressure, there not being any armed force or any 
other elements which might restrict its will, should have its opinion 
freely expressed, and the junta, after mature deliberation and conscien- 
tious study of the acts, declared, in a solemn meeting held on the 12th of 
September, 1824, the aggregation to Mexico which had been voted by a 
majority of the parties, representing a population of 96,829 inhabitants 
against G0,400 who voted in favor of Guatemala, and 15,724 who did not 
express any decisive opinion, but who, were they to be added to those 
who voted in favor of Guatemala, would always leave in iavor of Mex- 
ico a majority ot 20,705 inhabitants, as the population of Chiapas was 
then of 172,953 persons. Among the votes cast for Guatemala figured 
unduly those of the whole of Soconusco, when the truth was that in this 
department there was also a majority in favor of the union to Mexico. 
(Inclosure No. 4.) 

Chiapas thus ratified its final incorporation to the United Mexican 
States, appearing already in the first constitution of the latter as an 
integral i>art of the republic. It will not be out of our way to remem- 
ber that while Mexico had given so many proofs of its desire to see 
Chiapas act with entire liberty, Guatemala, besides the resistence she 
opposed and the declarations she made, as has been said, protected, at 
least in Tuxtla, even after the resolution of the junta, a movement 
against the aggregation to Mexico, made by the military force which 
was there, in open violation of the orders of the Mexican Government 
and of the same junta. But this movement had no favorable result, 
and on the 7th of October a junta met at Tuxtla and unanimously de- 
cided the aggregation to the Mexican liepublic. 

Two reasons have been alleged why the declaration of September 12, 
1824, should be invalidated. The first is the presence of the Mexican 
commissioner, who is said to have exercised pressure in the proceedings 
of the junta. In the first place when the commissioner arrived at Cin- 
dad Real, on the 4th of August, the districts had already voted ; there- 
fore there was no pressure exercised, since the junta confined itself to 
count the votes, an act which nobody has ever dared to brand with the 
charge of falsity. The resolution, therefore, was not voted simply by 
the representatives of the districts, but by the districts themselves, 
the computing of the count having been made, not by the number of 



BOUND AEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 101 

the districts, but by the number of the inhabitants. This strengjthened 
the incorporation, which was truly made by a majority of those who were 
interested in such a solemn act. 

In the second place, supposing that the commissioner could exercise 
0ny influence, Guatemala cannot complain, since she was invited to send 
also a representative, but declined such a prudent invitation. Mexico 
did all in her power to remove any doubt in regard to the legality with 
whi(;h a matter of such great importance should be decided. 

The second reason of alleged illegality consists in the presence of 
military forces. As I have said before, the Mexican minister declared 
that those Mexican troops were not in Chiapas, nor did SeQor Zebadua 
allege they were; and although that gentleman pretends the mere news 
that five hundred men would be stationed on the frontier was sufficient 
to dei)rive the inhabitants of Chiapas of their liberty, sti'l this argument 
cannot be seriously made, nor has it any value whatever when it is con- 
sidered that the whole thing never went beyond the sphere of a simple 
suggestion made for the piirpose that Central America should be per- 
suaded of the sincerity of the Mexican Government, which did not pre- 
tend to take any advantage of any kind. 

Hence, it is demonstrated that not only was the declaration of Sep- 
tember 12, 1824, entirely legal, but it ys^as so clear and free that it does 
not leave the shadow of a doubt in regard to the will of Chiapas. 

These facts, which appear in official documents, establish in the most 
conclusive manner the right of Mexico to the province of Chiapas, and 
close the door against all discussion, because none is possible in view 
of the spontaneousuess and firmness with which the incorporation was 
made. Chiapas was not a district of Guatemala, it was a province in 
every respect equal to Honduras, Costa Rica, Salvador, Nicaragua, and 
Guatemala herself, which, in fact, had no greater rights than the rest 
that formed the captaincy-general. What can she allege to sustain her 
posterior protests against the annexation of Chiapas to Mexico, since 
the action of that province was like that of the others "? 

If Chiapas could not unite herself to Mexico by her own action, neither 
could the other provinces, which asked to be separated from the capital. 
ISoT could the latter act without counting with Salvador, because as 
their rights were the same, so were their obligations. Each province 
acted with entire liberty; and as Mexico respected the will of tlie |)eo- 
ple who would not unite, so Guateniala must respect that of Chiapas 
so definitely manifested. I now pass to the question of Soconusco. 

Under the government of the Aztecs Soconusco was a province of 
the empire, and during a long time under the rule of the Spaniards was 
one of the four governments which they established in the kingdom of 
Guatemala, but since 1790 it was a district of the intendency of Chia- 
pas. It therefore formed part of the latter in 1821 ; consequently it 
must suffer the fate of the province, without Guatemala being able to 
claim a special right to that territory or pretending to separat«^ it from 
the other districts. Now, when Chiapas prochiiined its union to Mexico, 
none of the parts which composed it manifested opposition, and Guate- 
mala herself consented, at least tacitly, as during the em[)ire of Iturbide 
the provinces which formed the captaincy-general, and which were an- 
nexed to Mexico; did it with all their districts; it being noticed that if 
any of them presented resistance they would have taken care to show 
it; and in that regard the gubern::tive junta used the phrase, without 
binding or comi)eUing the places which winh to unite ivlth other' governments. 
If, therefore, Soconusco fiid not tcish to unite u-ith another government., it 
is, without doubt, that in 1821 she was united, like Chiapas, to the Em- 
pire of Mexico. 



102 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

When, ill 18-3, anarcli.y broke out in the ])rovince Socoiiusco suffered 
the conmiotion incident to the new condition of affairs; but she was 
not sei)arated from Chiajias, since, ontlie4rh of July, 1823, Don Manuel 
Escobar enteied tlie suitrenie junta as re]>resentative of the whole de- 
partuient ot Soconusco, and on the 31st signed the decree of hasea^ in 
whi(;h (Jhia])as is soleniidy declared " free and indei)endent of Mexico 
and all other authority, and in a condition to decide whatever she might 
think best, this declaration being communicated to the Governments of 
Mexico and Guatemala." 

We have, therefore, juoved that Soconusco was at liberty to unite 
herself to Mexico or to Guatemala, or to Ibim an iude])en(lent nation, 
but not to separate her destiny from that of Chia])as, in whose junta she 
was legitimately represented, and whose resolutions she obeyed without 
any difficulty. The supreme junta reassembled, and on the 9th of Feb- 
ruary, 1824, Uou Manuel Ignacio Escarra, as representative from Soco- 
nusco, came to it. 

The junta, on the 24th of March, having under consideration that the 
constitutioiud bases of Mexico and Guatemala were already known ; that 
botli were liberal and both established the federation ; that the form of 
government not being central, the distance to the respective capitalsdid 
not enter into the case, since each province should be constituted as it 
consiJered most to its advantage; that the i)eople were in a condition 
to calculate for themselves the advantages or disadvantages of their 
union with one rei)ublic or the other, " desiring to give to all the peo- 
ple the most irrefutable proof of the respect with which it looked upon 
their })ubHc interests and happiness, re-enacted what had been i)ro- 
vided by the circular of December of the year before, and hoping that 
without further delay all the distiicts should state frankly to which one 
of the nations they desired to be united, with the understanding that it 
being incumbent upon them to weigh the advantages or disadvantages 
of their action, the rej»resentatives who form this junta shall do, as or- 
gans of the general will, no more than solemnly declare what has been 
the decision of the i)eople, ui)()n the basis of the number of inhabitants, 
reporting to the nation in whose lavor the iucorjjoration has been de- 
cided, with authentic co]»ies ot all the documents and returns, and by 
these means, no town nor individual could believe that they had inter- 
fered with the rights of man in a matter so transcendeutly delicate to 
future generations. 

In consequence of the decision of the junta, the city government of 
Tai)achula resolved: That the peoi)]e of Tuxtla and Escuintla, as well 
as all the rest of the people of the (lepartment, should choose represent- 
atives and ])nbliely aniu)un(e the day of meeting. This meeting took 
place on the 3(1 of May, 1824, and was attended not only by the dele- 
gates but also by the distinguished persons and inlmbitants of Tapa- 
chula, and the (;ircular of the supreme junta was read in a loud and 
clear voice, its contents being explained, and it being shown that upon 
the decision of such a delicate matter the future destiny of the district 
must dei>eiul. in order that they should reflect upon the decision. They 
decided by a plurality of votes that they wished to be annexed to the 
federal Goveniment of the Mexican nation. (Indosure Ko. 5.) 

iJut, behold I without any Known motive and gixing way j)robably to 
extraneous intluenc.e, on the 24th ot JuI.n, of the same year, Ta[)achula 
made a new declaration separating herself from Cliiai)as and declaring 
herself to he apart of the supreme Government of the united provinces of 
Central Ameiic i. 

It was said that this was done in consequence of the decree of the 
general congress, and of a note of the minister of foreign relations of 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 103 

Mexico ; but tliat cause was in every respect insufficient, because, in 
those documents, the liberty of the province of Chiapas, as slie was 
constituted had been gunranteed ; her arbitrary dismemberineut had not 
been authorized. Those documents did not designate the acts which 
the junta shouhl execute; nor did they revoke those already executed, 
ratifying only the recognition of the liberty of the province. A proof 
of the illegality of the declaration of Tapachula is that in the 4th ar- 
ticle it is i)rovided " to put a division under arms to sustain the decree." 
A useless precaution if the authors of it should have acted with the 
justification which governed the act of May 3. 

On the other hand, as Soconusco had agreed to the formation of the 
junta and sent its representative twice to it, the new declaration made 
without any authority was an unlawful, an unjustifiable rebellion. The 
junta, therefore, gave it no consideration, and its work being ended is- 
sued the solemn declaration of September 12, 1824, which legally again 
annexed Chiapas, together with Soconusco, to the Republic of Mexico. 

That act of Ta]»achula is the only title on which Central America re- 
lies; and to-day Guatemala pretends to establish her right to Soconusco. 
Article 1 of the decree of the 18th of August, 1824, expressly declares 
this ; it says : 

The province of Socouusco by virtue of its declaratiou is incorporaced. in the Re- 
public of Central America. 

The Government of Guatemala makes two arguments in defense of 
this declaration : (1.) That Soconusco washer province ; (2.) And j»rin- 
cipally that as Mexico contends that Chiapas was at liberty to separate 
lierself from Guatemala, so also it must be acknowledged that Soconusco 
was at liberty to separate herself from Chiapas. The first allegation is 
incorrect, because although Soconusco was a government of the old 
kingdom of Guatemala in 1821, it was only a district of Chiapas, and 
this is the name which was given it in the act of July 24. Consequently 
the social position of both parts was not as identical as was necessary 
in order that the rights of both should be the same; since, if this prin- 
ciple be admitted, the separation of each town, of each village, must be 
consented to, which would cause innumerableevils ; but, even supposing 
that absolute liberty, even admitting that Soconusco could be separated 
from Chiapas, the truth is that she did not do it in 1821, nor in 1823, 
when the separation of the o"ther provinces of Guatemala and the anarchy 
of Chiapas presented the most opportune occasion, and that, far from 
separating herself, she united more strongly her destiny with that of 
Chiapas, contributing to the formation of the supreme junta. Conse- 
quently not having made use of the right which was given her the first 
allegation of Guatemala is entirely destroyed. 

So is the second, if it is considered that the true the only origin of the 
constitution of a society is the legal vote of the people who compose it. 
Soconusco accepted, obeyed, and sustained the supreme junta; she was 
legitimately represented in it; exercised in the most solemn manner her 
right of election, deciding on the 3d of Maj', 1824, in favor of the annex- 
ation to Mexico. In short, she exercised all the functions which cor- 
respond to a free and supreme people like herself. What more could 
she claim ? She had done what the other districts of Chiapas did ; what 
the other iH'ovinces of Guatemala had just done; what those that had 
composed Xew Spain had done before ; what has been done and is done 
all over the world: the only thing which is possible to do when demo- 
cratic principles recognized once as sacred and the representative sys- 
tem is established as the most convenient government lor the interests 
of society. 



104 ' BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

But if Soconusco was at liberty to choose she was not at liberty to re- 
verse the election ; this done, the act was in every respect consummated ; 
in attempting to reverse it no right was exercised ; an obligation con- 
tracted in the most solemn manner was revolutionarily broken, because 
the fact that Soconusco had to obey the junta was an obligation, and 
a very sacred one. Seiior Don Juan de Dios Mayorga, representative 
for Guatemala, in a speech made in the Congress of 1823 said : That 
" the junta should act in conformity with the mission wliich it had re- 
ceived from the peoi)le." Therefore, if it was obliged to act according 
to the will of the people, the people also had to obey the decisions which 
should be made within the legal jiowers of the junta; consequently 
Soconusco was obliged to obey the decree of annexation with all the 
more justice, in as far as it agreed with her own vote of May 3, 1824. 

But let us suppose for a moment that on that day Soconusco should 
have voted in favor of Guatemala. If the assembly, when the votes of 
all the districts were computed, had declared that the majority was in 
favor of annexation to Mexico, Soconusco was bound to submit; since 
in consenting to the creation of the junta and giving it its powers, it 
had contracted the obligation of submitting to its final decision. In no 
other way can the rejjresentative system be conceived ; if each part is 
considered perfectly at liberty to revoke the power conferred, to break 
the compact when made, the necessary consequences will be revolution, 
the triumph of power over right, and the dissolution of society. 

As I said before, the decree of the Mexican Congress on which the sec- 
ond vote of Tapachula was founded cannot su])port that really seditious 
act, because in declaring that Chiapas was free to decide her destiny 
it did not in the least limit the i)ower of the junta. On the contrary, 
Mexico in that decree recognized the junta, because it was issued after 
the junta had met, and that acknowledgment naturally carried with 
it a sanction of all the steps which the assembly might take in a matter 
so important. And as one of these had been to hear the opinion of the 
districts, and as that was done anterior to the decree, and this did not 
modify the situation of Chiapas in any respect, but rather contirmed the 
acts of the junta, this worked within its powers, performed its mission 
loyally, and should be obeyed by Soconusco and respected by Guate- 
mala. 

But both people, far from complying wi'th such sacred obligations, 
placed themselves in a plainly seditious position. Soconusco, breaking 
her anterior and voluntary promises, turned her back on the junta, and 
made the declaration of July 24, and Central America, without waiting 
for the decision of the legitimate representatives of the province, and 
forgetting her spontaneous declaration, issued on August 18, 1824, the 
decree in which it was declared tliat Soconusco was incorporated in the 
Central Republic. That decree was in truth an undue act, and all the 
more grave, since it not only attacked the right, in every respect un- 
questionable, that the supreme junta of Chiapas had of deciding the 
indei)endence of the i)rovince or its annexation to either of the nations, 
but it also put Central America in the most jierfect contradiction with 
itself. When, in 1823, the formation of the junta was communicated to 
her, the national constituent assembly resolved, on July 21 (see inclos- 
ure No. G) : 

That if at last Chiapa.s wished to be annexed to these United Provinces she wonld 
be re(reived with the greatest )>le;isnre, and then tlieir happiness would be complete; 
"but if the same Chiapas should think it more in conformity with her interests to re- 
innin separated, she shonlil not be opposed, for she can always entirely rely upon the 
friendship, the fraternity, and the services of the State of Guatemala. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 105' 

This solemn declnratioii contains three points of the utmost impor- 
tance. (L.) The confession tliat Chiapas was separated from Guatemala,, 
as it was left at liberty to remain, a sentence which confirms the legality 
with which the aniiexation to the empire in 1821 was verified. (2.) The 
most voluntary protest to abide by the decision of Chiapas, because 
"the United Provinces must respect the free will of those who are not 
resolved to enter into our compact." (3.) The most explicit acknowl- 
edgment of the supreme junta, whose wisdom and circumspection they 
justly commended. 

There is still more: The (xovernment of Guatemala sent to the Gov- 
ernment of Mexico on October 3, 1823, a communication, in which it says 
it has " the firm determination not to oppose the decision of Chiai)as if 
she wished to unite herself to Mexico." How, therefore, without wait- 
ing for the decision of the junta did that same Congress of Central 
America declare that Soconusco, by virtue of her declaration, became 
incorporated in the Central llepublic ? Was the unlawful and sediiious 
vote of July 24 sufficient to u-urp the powers of the supreme junta? 
The decree of August 18, 1824, broke the decisionof July 21, 1823; and 
it can be said that the latter comprised the province of Chiapas and the 
former only the State of Soconusco, because when it was made, no ex- 
ception to any part of the province was expressed, and Soconusco was 
comprised in Chiapas, as she had belonged to the old intendency, as she 
then belonged to the province, and as she had voted on May 3, as the 
other districts did. Even supposing that Soconusco was at liberty to^ 
reverse the first vote, Guatemala, not only for the respect which it owed 
the supreme junta, but for the respect it owed itself, was strictly obliged 
to wait for the decision of Chiapas. The resolution of July 21, 1823, 
■was a compact as solemn as it had been voluntarj^ ; to break it only for 
a vote given in perfect rebellion was an act in every respect contrary 
to the principles of justice, and to wish to establish a right upon it was- 
then and is now an entirely unsustainable claim. The junta of Chiapas 
in September, 1824, protested against the decree of August 18 ; and the 
Mexican Government, by virtue of the right which the solemn declara- 
tion of September 12 of the same year gave it, remonstrated in March, 
1825, against the usurpation of the district of Soconusco. 

As is seen, the contrast between the two Governments cannot be 
more complete. Mexico sought for the free expression of the will of 
Chiapas ; Guatemala refused to co-operate in that act of justice. Mex- 
ico received in the confederation Chiapas and Soconusco, by virtue of 
the lawful resolution of a junta, recognized by Central America herself. 
Central America decreed by herself that Soconusco belonged to her 
by virtue of an illegal and revolutionary act. Mexico did not then ap- 
peal to force, having the necessary elements to do it, aiul waited during 
many months that the conviction might produce a favorable result. 
Guatemala, on January 25, 1825, prepared to occupy Tapachula with 
her own troops, thus opening the door to new and very grave difficul- 
ties. 

This attitude, already really hostile, obliged the Government of Chia- 
pas to prepare in June, 1825, to march troops to Tonala, and the fed- 
eral Government hastened the march of General Anaya, since the in- 
tention of Guatemala was no longer doubtful. The Mexican troops by 
entering Chiapas did in no way offend Guatemala, as they situated 
themselves in territory unquestionably Mexican. The federal Go\ ern- 
ment was not obliged to give an account to Central America of her 
military movements, which were not subject to the will of a foreigu. 
country. So much the less when the arbitrary occupation of Tapachula 



106 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

was a true threat to tbe trauquillity of Chiapas, which Mexico was 
-ol)lijie<l to preserve. 

Tlieii several cominuuications were intercbanfjed between the secre- 
tary of state of Mexico and the minister plenipotentiary of Central 
America, by virtue of which the troops of Guatemala were withdrawn 
and the Mexicans did not arrive at Soconusco, wliicli district was left 
in a truly anomolous condition. It is pretended to give to the above- 
named communications the character of an agreement, for the purpose 
of establishi ug the strange opinion that Mexico violated all the laws, 
and attacked every right in occupying Soconusco in 1842. A slight ex- 
amination of those acts will be sufficient to prove that the opinion 
which has been exi>ressed in support of them is without any founda- 
tion. 

Seiior Don Juan de Dias Mayorga, representative of Central America, 
suggested, first, that the question should be submitted to the decision 
of the congress of Panama. Sefior Don Lucas Alaman, the Mexican 
minister, declared, on August 22. 1825, that the means i)roposed were 
not acceptable ; because the general congress had not been ])leased to 
approve the stipulation of the treaty made with Colombia, in which it 
was desired to be stijjulated that the congress of all the American 
States should perform the functions of umpire. 

On the 24th Seiior Mayorga said to Sefior Alaman: 

As tbe point in question reduces itself to a dispute about tbe boundaries of each 
republic ; tbe object of a treaty is to regulate tbem, wbich treaty could be made, or 
let your Government send a minister to mine, or I can ask tbe corresponding instruc- 
tions to frame it, as my Goverument instructed mo tbat I can offer to present it within 
Jive moiilhs. Tbis treaty itself could contain the most firm and sure guarantees for the 
independence and integrity of tbe territory on wiiicli it might mutually be agreed ; it 
would be respected, and in this way all tbe necessary confidence for establishing a 
more solid friendship would be inspired. In tbe mean time the district of Soconusco 
should be free from the troops of either party, without prejudice to the rights of my 
Government, while its fate is being decided by the treaty which I propose. 

Seiior Alaman answered, on the 31st of August, the following, which, 
on account of the imiiortance that has been given to this incident by 
Guatemala, I think it well to insert here verbatim: 

By the communication of your excellency dated the 24th of last month, which I 
have communicated to the most excellent President of these States, his excellency 
has seen, with tbe greatest satisfaction, tbe means projiosed by the Government of 
your excellency of submitting to the decision of the congress which has to meet in 
Panama, the question pending between this Government and yours relative to the dis- 
trict of Soconusco, and, although he does not think tbis suggestion acceptable, he be- 
lieves, nevertheless, tbat other means more appropriate may be selected to terminate 
this question amicably. What your excellency has suggested meets the wishes of 
his excellency, who agrees that immediate stt-ps should be taken to frame a treaty, 
for the purpose not only of regulating the boundaries betwecin the two republics, but 
also of fixing upon a firm and solid basis their mutual relations in tbe future, for wbich, 
for the sake of brevity, it would be the best for your Government to give your ex- 
cellency the necessary instructions, thus avoiding tbe delay which would originate by 
the traveling of tbe representative of this Goverument who might be sent to yours. 
In the mean time the troops and military authorities of the United Provinces of Cen- 
tral Ameiica shall evacuate the territory in the district <if Soconusco as your excel- 
lency offered, so that the troops of these States will by no means pass tbe dividing 
line of ftiat district, in which, moreover, free entrance will be given those who for 
political reasons may have seen it fit to emigrate, without requiring of them any oath ; 
not putting tbem to any inconvenience in their p' rsons, nor in the exercise of their 
respective rights, leaving everything in tbe state in which it was before the Govern- 
ment of your excellency proceeded to exact the oath to the constitution in tbe Cen- 
tral Provinces. lu tbis way neitbt r the Government of your excellency nor that of 
mine shall attempt to draw from that state contributions of men, money, or anything 
«lse; nor shall any other authorities than the local ones govern ; and which, by their 
municipal charge, may perform the functions of government through lack of the elect- 
ive functionaries of the superior authorities of the state or province to which said dis- 
trict may belong at the conclusion of the treaty. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 107 

In all these conciliatory measures, by which the Government of these States does 
not reuonnce in any way the right which this republic has to the district of Tapa- 
■chula, the President hopes that the Government of yonr excellency will see anew , 
proof of the desire which animates him to terminate this point in an amicable man- 
ner, making with the Government of the Central Republic a solemn compact which 
shall mutually guarantee the rights of both nations. Although, as Ihe Government 
of your excellency will have seen, the Mexican division under General Aiiaya has not 
intended to invade the district of Soconusco, and that this conduct may alone be a 
sufificient guarantee of the peaceable intentions of this Governmenr, still new orders 
shall be repeated to that general in regard to what lie must observe as soon as your 
excellency may be pleased to inform me that yon agree with the measuies; offering 
to your excellency, by order of the President, all the assurance which :sou may de- 
sire on the part of this Government for the completion of this nnderraking, it being 
very necessary that your Government should coniniunicate its sanction to this system 
of peace and conciliation directly to General Anaya as soon as the troops which oc- 
cupy the State of Tapachula are ordered to retreat, and to the government of the 
State of Chiai^as, in order that it may direct the return of the eiiiigrauts and the con- 
tinuation of 'rafiQcand communication between the said district of Tapachula and the 
rest of the State under its command, which probably will be interrupted or stopped 
with the exaggerated fears that wi^ be conceived. 

I have a true satisfaction in making to yonr excellency a communication, whose re- 
sult maybe to avoid the great evils which would follow an interruption of thefriendly 
relations between the two nations and consolidate more and more their union and 
fraternity. I am, with the greatest consideration, 
Your obedient servant, 

LUCAS ALAMAN. 

Senor Mayorga, on tbe same day, said the following : 

I see with the greatest pleasure by your excellency's communication of to-day, that 
the means which I proposed in the commnnication I had the honor of addressing to 
you on the 24th of last month, have satisfied the wishes of his excellency the Presi- 
dent. It will be very gh)rious for his excellency to terminate hajipily and amicably 
a matter which has already unfortunately assumed a hostile aspect between two 
brother people. 

I shall transmit with satisfaction to my Government the note of your excellency, 
and al the same time I will ask for the corresponding instructions, not only in order 
that the present contention may be definitely terminate t, bitt to mark out the bound- 
a.ries of both republics, tognarantee their mutual integrity, and, in fine, to form a treaty 
of friendship, of union, of alliance, and of commerce, as becomes all the nations of 
America, and especially these two, which under so many names must be in eternal 
alliance. 

My Government instructed me that I should propose to the Government of your ex- 
cellency that this dispute be terminated by means of a treaty, leaving in ihe wean tim« 
evei\tithing in statu quo. In my note of the 24th, which I sent to your excellency, I 
offered, moreover, even without instruction from my Government that the district of 
Soconusco should be rid of the Central American troops, in which event, so is it to be 
from the Mexican troops, whilst it is being decided by the treaty to whom it must 
belong. I did not hesitate in making this promise, in view of the fact that my Gov- 
ernment has not before had a single soldier in Soconusco, and that what caused it to 
send forces to that place was the news that a Mexican division was coming and feared 
that the district would be militarily occupied ; but being sure that it will not be done, 
I did not hesitate in offering that it would be evacuated by pacific means in order to 
facilitate the treaty. 

As to the return of the emigrants, although I have no instructions, it also seems to 
me that my government will agree that they may return without suffering any perse- 
cution, })iovided that they will not mix in politics, and that they await the destiny 
of Soconusco, which is to be decided by the treaty That, in this interval, popular 
action must be avoided, and that in case there is any it must be of no value and effect, 
and the treaty should be celebrated as if there is none. 

I regret not to be authorized by my Government to agree with the other measures 
which your excellency was i)leased to express to me; under such circumstances lean 
do no more than to send them immediately for their consideration, with the request 
that the decision should be iransmitted to me as soon as possible ; but it will come at ' 
the same time as the instructions which 1 expect for the treaty that will decide the 
•determination of the question, and the unalterable harmonv of both rejublics. All 
•of this I exi)ect by the kindness of your excellency to be transmitted to his excel- 
lency the president of the reptiblic, and accept the rex)eated protest of my considera- 
tion and resjiect. 

I am your very obedient servant, 

JUAN DE DIAS MAYORGA. 



108 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Therefore since the representative of Central America had no instrac- 
tions, the note of the Mexican minister contained only a project of ajjree- 
ment ad referendum. The Conjjress of Central America approved the 
proposals of SeQor Alaman ; bnt in doin<if so it added the declaration 
that Soconusco should continue to be governed by the laws of Guate- 
mala, and that the public functionaries of the district should obey the 
orders of the Central American authorities. The sinijde approval of 
the proposals of Minister Alaman could not have elevated them to the 
category of an international compact, because, to givu) them that effect, 
the approval of tiie Mexican Congress was necessary. What can be 
therefore its legal force when there were so many amendments in points 
of such importance? What value can be put on the decree of October 
31, 1825, issued by the Congress of Central America, when in it, it is 
provided that Soconusco must still be governed by the laws of Guate- 
mala; that is, in other words, deciding the principal point of the ques- 
tion which was agitated between the two«nations? The most that can 
be said is that that decree ci»ntains a counter-project of agreement, 
which, consequently, should be presented to the Mexican Government; 
KG that, in case of acceptance, it could be submitted to the approval of 
Congress in conformity with the federal constitution. 

By what right could Central America contend that its decree should 
bind Mexico and have the force of an international compact when it 
had not been legally approved ? That Congress was at liberty to decree 
what it j)leased ; but its resolutions in respect to Mexico were only prop- 
ositions for an agreement, which in fact contained in themselves the 
germ of new evils, because they revealed the true intentions of Central 
America. 

In the suggestions of Minister Alaman that the troops should be with- 
drawn, that the emigrants should not be molested, that taxes should 
not be imposed, and that the municipal authorities should alone govern 
in Soconusco he did not prejudge the question of the ownership of that 
territory, and only manifested with all loyalty the intention of Mexico, 
always worthy and never recognized, of leaving that people free and 
arranging amicably the question of boundary. 

The correspondence on that subject was the declaration above cited, 
which, in truth, closed the door against all arrangement, because by 
virtue of it Central America decided that it had to continue to govern 
in Soconusco; that it did not give up its pretensions ; it gave for granted 
a right unfounded in its origin and vicious in its a|)plication, and lim- 
ited its gracious acceptance to the withdrawal of the troo[)s, which per- 
haps was only on account of their proximity to those which General 
Anaya commanded. 

The ideas of Guatemala could not be accepted by Mexico; but neither 
does it appear that the decree which contained them was ever commu- 
nicated ; nor is there any proof that the executive did ever give his 
consent to them, or presented the i)roject to the general Congress. Con- 
Bequently there was no agreement between Ministers Alaman and 
Mayorga. If there should have been, it could have no force, because 
Guatemala substantially modifieil it ; and, in short, even giving to the 
communications of August 31, 1825, the value which tliey lack; and 
even sui)posing them approved without change by Guatemala, the 
agreement would be reduced to the class of a project, as it was not ap- 
proved by the Congress of Mexico, an indispensable condition to the 
validity of any treaty. 

Mexico, therefore, not only did not bind himself to respect the statu 
quo of Soconusco, but preserved the rights which the vote of May 3 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 109 

and the declaration of September 12, 1824, made by the supreme junta 
of Chiapas g^ave her. 

Merely political considerations, the incessant agitations for the con- 
solidation of democratic principles, from which for a long time the 
republic suffered, the strife of the parties which to a certain extent ener- 
vated the action of the Mexican Government, and the hope, unfortu- 
natelj' not realized, that Guatemala would give up her jjretensions, 
delayed this nnportant business for a number of yeais. Soconusco re- 
mained in fact in a kind of neutrality, which, without being recognized 
by Mexico, gave, however, some reason to believe there was a tacit con- 
sent, what in reality was only toleration, in respect to that people and 
consideration for Guatemala. The territory was at times the scene of 
Central American invasions, at other times a refuge for political emi- 
grants, and not seldom the haunt of criminals, its ruin being the neces- 
sary consequence of such direful elements. 

In view of the above facts, what was really the condition of Socon- 
usco? By right it was a part of Chiapas; in fact it was a kind of Ban- 
seatic territory. But this neutrality which Guatemala has invoked in 
support of her pretensions was violated by her when Ministers Alaman 
and Mayorga had just signed the notes above inserted, since by a de- 
cree issued October 12, 18-5, the State of Guatemala numbered Socou- 
usco among the districts that formed the department of Quezaltenango. 
"Was that unexpected declaration a worthy return for the frankness with 
which the Mexican minister of foreign relations had acted ? Was this 
the way of leaving everything m statu quo, as Sefior Mayorga proposed 
by express instructions from his Government. The decree of October 
12, 1825, was only a confirmation of the one of August 18, 1824; it was 
the i)ractical application of an illegitimate right ; it was the completion 
of the seditious vote of Tapachula; it was the genuine expression of 
the fixed intention of Guatemala; it was the ratification of the wrong 
done to Mexico and the most complete contradiction of the protests of 
friendship and traternity voluntarily offered in the supreme junta of 
Chiapas in the resolution of July 1, 1823. 

And this w^as not the only violation of neutrality, because in 1832, on 
account of the consi^iracy attributed to Don Manuel Jose de Arce, 
Colonels Eaul and Martinez occupied the territory of Soconusco with 
troops from Guatemala, and remained in it even after the defeat of 
Arce, causing serious damage to that people, who complained to the 
Government of Chiapas. 

Another highly notable violation was that done in 1839, when the 
Department of Los Altos became a State, because Soconusco was com- 
prised in its territory. This act was the repetition of that of October 
12, 1825, and proves conclusively that Guatemala considered that dis- 
trict as her own, in spite of her official declarations and friendly protests. 
What was then the statu quo of Soconusco ? What was then the respect 
due the agreement of 1825 and the neutrality which was established 
bjiti 

These facts and some more which Licentiate Don Manuel Larrainzar 
refers to in his Noticia Eistorica de Soconusco, and other subsequent 
ones, which I do not use on account of the length of this communica- 
tion, prv)ve in the most conclusive manner that Guatemala, up to 1842, 
repeatedly violated the neutrality which she afterwards invoked, break- 
ing the supposed agreement of 1825. Mexico in the mean time abstained 
from acting, which she could have done, in view of so many transgres- 
sions, because even admitting the legal constitution of the agreement, 
its violation unquestionably gave the right to consider it in every re- 



110 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

spect broken. If tliere are different opinions on the due annulling of a 
treaty in consequence of the violation of any secondary article, there is 
no doubt in affirming that, according to the law of nations, the compact 
is completely dissolved when its essential foundation is violated. And 
the reason is very clear: in the first case, perhaps, the evil can be 
remedied and the infraction healed on account of the lofty objects of 
the treaty. In the second case there is no remedy, because the founda- 
tion of the compact once destroyed it is imi)ossible to carry out the ob- 
ject for which it was made, and because that viohition shows in the 
Government which did it a deliberate intention to antagonize the agree- 
ment, and breeds certain contempt towards the Government with which 
it was contracted, and to which an injury has been done, whose im- 
portance must not oidy be measured by the imi)ortance of the matter, 
but also by the dignity of the offended nation. 

Now, therefore, what was the essential object of the agreement of 
1825? The withdrawal of the troops, the return of the emigrants, and 
the abstaining from exacting taxes were the means that were considered 
necessary for accomplishing the desired end, which was the neutrality 
of Soconusco while the treaty of boundaries was pending. And can 
that neutrality be ]>ossibly conceived, in view of the decrees of 1825 
and 1839, which de(jlare<l that that district formed i)art of Guatemala? 
The neutrality implied doubt as to the ownership of Soconusco; the 
decrees established that ownership, and necessarily destroyed the 
foundation of the agreement, because Soconusco could not at the same 
time be neutral and belong to Guatemala. Such a confusion of ideas 
would be truly absurd, irreconcilable not only with justice but with 
reason, which cannot conceive doubt and truth united in the same act. 
And nevertheless, forcible it is to say, such was the condition of Soco- 
nusco until 1842, because its neutrality had a very strange character. 
There was neutrality for Mexico and ownership for Guatemala. Mexico 
had obligations and Guatemala rights. Soconusco, in respect to Mexico, 
"was a free country, governed by its local authorities; in respect to 
Guatemala it was a district of Los Altos, governed by the laws of Cen- 
tral America. What, tlierefore, became of the agreement of 1825? 
Neutrality supposes the forbearance of the contending parties. Singu- 
lar and perhaps unique was the neutrality of Soconusco ; because, while 
Mexico abstained from action for seventeen years, Guatemala by her 
acts destroyed the title which she pretended to establish, first on the 
act of Tapachula and afterwards on the communications of Ministers 
Alaman and Mayorga. Aiul all the above supposes a perfect treaty; 
as this never existed it must necessarily be concliuled that the neutrality 
of Soconusco was«only a tact which the Mexican Republic tolerated for 
Beventeen years without contracting any obligation with Guatemala. 

But, as everything in the world has its end, so did the toleration in 
respect to Soconusco have its ; but the prudence of Mexico could not 
lower itself to weakness. The condition of that part of the territory 
was in every respect indefensible; its evils were being aggravated 
more and more every day and its future became every instant more and 
more unpleasant, and the happiness of the rest of Chiapas being ex- 
posed to danger, which the Government of Mexico was obliged to pre- 
vent at all cost. 

On the other hand, the bad condition of affairs from which Soconusco 
Buttered, and whicn were aggravated day by day, with acts not very 
benevolent on the part of Guatemala, had already produced their nat- 
ural effect : aversion in respect to Guatemala and inclination in respect 
to Mexico. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. Ill 

Onr revolutions, thonjjh unfortunate they may seem, liave never 
gone so far as to destroy the unity of the nation. Tliis or that party con- 
quers ; this or that form of government triumphant. The Mexican 
States or departments have remained united in the same tie wiiich 
bound them together in 1821, as the revolution of Yucatan did not pro- 
duce consequences of notable importance, and the one of Texas, in its 
origin, progress, and development, had a character in every respect ex- 
ceptionable. 

Guatemala, the prey to incessant struggle, liad seen tlie federation of 
1823 dissolved, as the provinces which then formed were States that 
recognized no common center. This circumstance had a decisive influ- 
ence on the people of Soconusco, who, if, in 1824, had aiiy opinion 
favorable to Guatemala, had seen disappear, one by one, all hopes of 
happiness. 

Is it strange, indeed, that, from the dei)ths of their bitter condition, 
those people should turn their eyes to Mexico, asking, as the mayor of 
Tapacluila said on the 18th of May, 1810, " to hear the supplications of 
lier orphans and put an end to their anxieties, so that their suffering 
would be over"! 

Even admitting the supposed neutrality of 1825, Guatemala could not 
im])ede the new annexation of Soconusco, because neutrality carrier 
with it the obligation that the contending nations should respect the 
statu quo; but it does not deprive the neutral j)eo]>le from acting ac- 
cording to their best interest. 

Furthermore, the dissolution of Central America authorized the con- 
duct of Soconusco, which, as appears from the act of July, 1824, did not 
unite herself to Guatemala but to the United Provinces of Central Amer- 
ica. 

Consequently, when those provinces were separated, when there was 
no central Government to represent them outside, when each one strug- 
gled to be independent without relying on the others, when in use of its 
particular sovereignty each one tried to enter on relations with foreign 
Governments, as Guatemala earnestly pretended at that time in respect 
to Mexico, Soconusco could rightly say that the agreement made in 
Tapachula had ceased, and consequently she was at liberty to decide her 
destiny again. 

And if this is so, by supposing that the vote of July 24, 1824, was 
legal, what will be said when its complete nullity is proved ? 

Guatemala can allege no right to impede the annexation of Soconusco, 
becau>e there was no agreement in 1825 ; because if there should have 
been one, it was violated, and because the only title which she could 
present at that time was totally void, and eveu supposing it valid, it 
became extinct on the dissolution of the federation of Central America, 

Why, therefore, does Guatemala complain of the occupation of Soco- 
nusco in 18421 

In view of the declarations of that people, having only considered 
their suffV^rlngs and desiring to save the dignity of the nation, w^ounded 
for seventeen years by acts really unlawful, the Government of Mexico 
resolved that Colonel Aguayo should occupy the territory which after- 
wards was declared united to Chiapas. In doing this it exercised the 
light which the vote of May 3, 1824, and the declaration of the sui^reme 
junta gave it. 

The conjmunications of 1825 imposed no obligations upon it, and the 
conduct of Guatemala still more authorized it by sending troops to So- 
conusco and exacting taxes, thereby intringing upon tlie only points on 
which an agreement had existed, and which, morally at least, would 



112 * BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

produce for her some obligations, through respect to the decree of her 
congress. 

Was the occupation of 1842 a crime for Mexico, and the often repeated 
violation of the neutrality a virtue? 

Did Mexico infringe upon the law of nations by occupying a district 
that was hers in fact and in law in 1821, which has continued to be hers 
by right since 1824, and which, even supposing legal, the second vote of 
Tai)acbula expressed again her will to bo united to the republic? 

Must that will only be respected when it is in favor of Guatemala! 

Did Central America comply with the obligations which were imposed 
npon it by the solemn declaration that it made to respect the decision 
of the supreme junta of Chiapas, which thought it more in conformity 
with her interests to remain separated from Guatemala? 

Was it a pi oof of that respect to declare that Soconusco belonged to 
it by virtue of an illegal act, and without waiting for the decision of the 
junta in which Soconusco was legitimately represented. 

Guatemala only relies upon the illegal vote of July, 1824; Mexico re- 
lies on the vote of 1821, on that of May 3, 1824, on the declaration of Sep- 
tember 12 of the same year, and on the solicitations of 1842. Who has 
therefore the greatest number of titles to sustain the possessions of So- 
conusco? Which of those titles have the best foundation? That of 
Guatemala is supported by the illegal disavowal of the junta and by 
illegal revocation of the previous vote, that is, it has a vicious origin, 
because Soconusco had freely recognized the junta and expressed its 
opinion on May 3. The decree of Guatemala, made on the I8ih of 
August, solely by virtue of that act, is also void, because Central 
America had recognized the junta and gave assurance that its decision 
would be respected. Was the second vote of Tapachula worth more 
than the first? Why did Central America so willingly accept it with- 
out waiting for the decision of the junta? The claims on which Mexico 
founds her right are, without doubt, the most solid. Nobody has ever 
doubted the vote of 1821. Guatemala did not remonstrate against the 
representation of Soconusco in the junta of Chiapas nor against the vote 
of May 3. The former and latter were, therefore, not only legal in their 
essence but were accepted by Guatemala, which only, on the 18th of 
August, resolved that the vote of July was superior to all, forgetting 
her ofiicial declarations. The resolution of the junta was, moreover, an 
act entirely' legal, and the declarations of 1842 are legitimate. The de- 
cree of President Santa Ana, far from being a usurpation, was only the 
result of a right which was supported by the will of the j^eople of Soco- 
nusco, expressed in so many different ways and with i)erfect liberty. 

In view of the occupation of Soconusco, Sehor Don Juan Jos6 de 
Aycinena, as secretary of the Government of the State of Guatemala, 
sent to the minister of foreign relations of Mexico a communication 
on the 12th of September, 1842, in which he defends the right of Guate- 
mala, and alleges the reasons which according to his judgment establish 
the pretensions so earnestly sustained since 1824. As the principal 
arguments of Seuor Aycinena have already been examined, and answered 
in this note, I shall only consider some si)ecial ones. 

It is alleged to establish the right to Soconusco a law of the code of 
the Indies, in which it is provided that the audiencia of Guatemala 
must be composed of certain provinces, Soconusco being enumerated 
among them. That proof does not hold good, because, as 1 have said 
before, the congregation or separation of the districts or provinces under 
the colonial rule only had relation to the administrative part. Two 
portions that were united became separated when their respective prog- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 11 3^ 

ress gave them a certain importance ; those that were separated be- 
came united when the decline of one made it less important/ Thus it 
happened to Soconusco, which was a province in the sixteenth century, 
and at the end of the eighteenth was a district in the intendency of 
Chiapas. She could iierself well have been the first province in the 
kingdom of Guatemala. It is certain that in 1821 she was only a district 
of Chiapas, which is sufficient for the question now before us. The 
argument founded on the laws of the Indies would be proof against 
the independence of the c lonies, which had to follow the destiny of the 
mother country. The true and only argument in cases like this is the 
will of the people. 

The argument which Seilor Aycinena pretends to establish on articles 
10 and 11 of the Mexican law of June 17, 1823, is as wortliless as the 
preceding one. That law ordered the election of the constituent con- 
gress, and, as was natural, it (jonditionally included the province of 
Guatemala, not in conformity with the old territorial division, but con- 
sidering nominally those which had been united to the empire, it is 
certain that Chiapas appears in the list, but it is also certain that Soco- 
nusco or Tapachula, since under both names it was known, does not, an 
omission winch gives as a result that the argumeut is c>ntr<t producen- 
tum, since it demonstrates that Soconusco was considered a part of 
Chiapas. Article 10, far from going against Mexico, is in her favor, 
because it only says that if the provinces of Guatemala iviah to remain 
united to Mexico the most exact census shall be used. A palpable dem- 
onstration of the good faith of the Mexican Congress, which left that 
peoi)le at liberty to establish a republic, as the gubernatorial junta left 
them in 1822. Chiapas did not unite herself to Mexico as forming part 
of Guatemala. In proclaiming her annexation to the empire she also- 
declared that she was separated from Guatemala, although t!ie latter 
could be united to Mexico. Consequently, the decree now under con- 
sideration did not restore the province to the dominion of its old capi- 
tal ; it only declared it free to express its will. What power had Mexico 
to decide that Chiapas behmged to Guatemala? Such making presents 
of people is absurd, contrary to nature^ and condemned by modern civ- 
ilization. 

Although, as I have shown, the notes of Seiior Alaman and Mayorga 
did not constitute a legal compact, I must mention and examine two 
phrases of Senor Aycenina, since Guatemala attempts to sustain the 
existence of that compact, and on it is founded, for the purpose of rudely 
attacking the Government of Mexico, the assumption that it broke an 
international compact and infringed upon the laws. Seiior Aycenina 
says that the minister of Central America proposed tiiat the territory 
of Soconusco should remain independent until some arrangement should 
be ma<le by means of a treaty. Therefore, how is the independence of 
Soconusco explained, if, according to the decree of October 31, 1825, 
the territory was to be governed by the laws of Guatemala and its au- 
thorities had to obey those of Central America ? Can a people be in- 
dependent when subject to foreign laws and authorities ? The decree 
of October 31 broke the sui^posed agreement, and the independence 
proposed by Sehor Mayorga w us only inw riting. Soconusco remainedy' 
in lact, without any intervention of part of the authorities of Mexico, 
but was not free from the intervention of Guatemala. Who, therefore, 
broke the compacts and infringed upon the law of nations ! 

Strange, indeed, is the affirmation of Seiior Aycinena, that the agree- 
ment " was accejjted by the best of faith by the federal Congress of 
Central America in a decree of October 31, 1825 ; " because it is proved 
H. Ex. 154 8 



114 'boundary between MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

that this decree oppcised the agreeuient, which, although never haviugauy 
force in respect to Mexico, it has always been invoked by Guatemala as 
the most solid foundation for her pretensions. If Guatemala should 
have accepted frankly and absolutely the propositions of Minister Ala- 
uian, she might say that, in good faith, she desired to terminate the 
question ; but, having modified them to such an extent that they really 
became void, it is not possible to recognize in the decree the true inten- 
tion w hiclj is attributed to it, with so much the more reason, since it is 
intended to sustain an agreement that did not have the ap})roval of 
the Mexican Congress. 

It iesuits from the above that Mexico did not break any compact 
lioi' infringe upon any law by occui)ying Soconusco in 1842. But Seiior 
Ay ci lien a says: 

That tlie lUMitrality has been recoguizetl by all jrovfi'imients, that have held sway 
iu the republic ol' Mexico ior the long period of seventeen years, V>y means of her 
own acts and her ministers resident in (.'eulrai America. 

As Seiior Aycinena does not mention these acts by name, it is not 
possible to examine the reasons which caused them, nor to judge of the 
bearing which they might have on the present question. Some, per- 
haps, were convlitioral ; that is, they were to be executed under the 
supposition of some new agreement ; others may have been the result 
of the necessity to prevent the crimes that were committed in Soco- 
nusco, wheie the criminals of both nations had taken refuge. Of this 
species is the connnunication a(hlressed by Minister Almonte, on March 
21, 1840, to the military commander of Chiajjas, for the i)urpose of ob- 
taining the extradition of condemned criminals, with the authority of 
Guatemala, and without breal^ing the neutrality. 

But let the ni'.mber and nature of those acts be what tht\y may, and 
also the language that may have been used ; the former and latter 
prove that Mexico tolerated an act, but they do nor. i)rove that she rec- 
ogiiized a right; they prove that Mexico did not meddle with the inte- 
rior a<lmiuist ration of affairs in Soconusco ; but they do not prove that 
she consented to the domination ot Guatemala; tliey prove, in sliort, 
that Mexico considered what was necessary for the inhabitants of Soro- 
nusco, but they do not prove she authorized the annexation of that part 
of Chiapas to Guatemala. In fact, the neutrality did not have power 
to make legitimate the second act of Tapachula, nor the decree of Gua- 
temala of August 18, 1821, the tirst being opjwsed to the previous vote 
and the second being opposed to the recognition which had been made 
of the junta. The neutrality, in fact, neither had jiower to nullify the 
first act of Tapachula nor the declaration of the supreme junta of Chi- 
apas; the former done with perfect liberty, and the latter made with 
due legality. Consequently, the recognition of the fact of neutrality 
only proves that the Government of Mexico, for reasons w'hich she alone 
can' appreciate, tolerated for seventeen years the anomalous jiosition 
which Guatemala took in respect to Soroiuisco ; but it <loes not prove 
the acceptance of an agreement which lacked the ai)])roval of the Con- 
gress, and rendering null and void any act of the federal Government 
or of Chiapas amounting to a legal agreement to respect as a right 
acquired by Guatemala what was only tolerance on the i)art of Mexico. 

If, therefore, the republic of Mexico was not bound by an interna- 
tional compact, it was at liberty to act as it did. In different ways the 
peoi)le of Soconusco had expressed the desire of being incorporated into 
Mexico, to whose protection they appealed to be freed from the evils 
which they suffered, and which, to a great extent, were the direct re- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 115 

suits of the dissolution of Central America, because the disorder which 
was naturally introduced in the general administration on the separa- 
tion of the provinces must have also produced notable disorder in the 
body of each one of them. 

The presence of Colonel Aguayo did not impose on Soconusco the im- 
perious will of the Government of Mexico, and the proclamation made 
by that general under date of May 18, 1840, as it appears from the of- 
ficial letter of the mayor of Tapachula, reveals the appeal made by those 
people. To protect the free expression of the will of Soconusco was 
the only object of that small expedition, and the proceedings which took 
place in Tapachula, Taxtla, and Escuineta contain the most conclusive 
expression in favor of annexation to Mexico. Against those acts it is 
alleged that the people did not have their liberty, and that they were 
executed under military pressure; but a single fact is not presented to 
prove that pressure, nor in the long period of time which has elapsed 
since then has there been presented a claim of any kind. Consequently 
the reincorporation of 1842 was legitimate, and Guatemala lacks all 
rights to sustain the one which she believed to have before the inde- 
pendence was proclaimed in Chiapas on September 3, 1821. 

The political commotion in Mexico prevented the taking up of this 
matter from 1842 untill854, aud although Guatemala maintained, until 
the year 1861, the diplomatic representative in Mexico, Senor Don Fe- 
lipe i^feri del Barrio, and although Mexico established a legation in Gua- 
temala in 1850, Ht the head of which was Seiior Macedo, who retired 
shortly, still the question of boundaries was not again taken up except 
in 1854, when the Government of Guatemala raised the question of pe- 
cuniary indemnification. 

In fact, Seiior Don Manuel F. Favon, representative of that republic, 
presented on March 3 to Senor Don Juan IST. de Pereda, minister plen- 
ipotentiary of Mexico, a draft of a treaty, article 6 of which said that 
Mexico should bind herself to liquidate that part of the credit which 
corresponded to Chiapas. On the 7th of the same month Seiior Pavon 
presented the following : 

During the time of the Spanish government in each proyince, the vice-royalty 
and captaincy-general had a general treasnry with their respective chai^ges, to which 
the r< venue of that province tvere specialli/ pledged. 

In Guatemala, for example, there were burdens not only on account of the con- 
solidation. There were also established many pious funds, ecclesiastical funds, aud 
other institutions. There also existed places of deposit of particular goods in liti- 
gation, invested with interest either in cigars or in mints, &c., as it happened with 
the cargoes and property of Irazari embargoed here in Mexico aud in Chili and Peru. 
There were also juros (funds), as, for instance, the ,180,000 of the university, besides 
pensions aud other debts. When independence was made in 1821, Guatemala con- 
tinued to recoguize this debt, and has paid pensions, revenues, stipends, &c., &c., 
and others of those charges, altliough common to all. Chiapas, being uo'v separated 
from Guatemala and uuitcl to Mexico, does not cease to share the responsil)i!ity. 

But to-day the whole burden is upon Guatemala and the otlnir States, aud the 
means now proposed to divide it are founded Ujiou the propositions which the na- 
tional assembly has computed in various decrees for the adjustment of the English 
debt and the one of the interior. Owing to lack of exact data of population and 
wealth, and even of revenue, an et;[uitable calculation has been made; and such is 
the arrangement which is projiosed iu resi>ect to Chiapas. Guatemala in giving her 
consent that that department aud Soconusco may continue as theii are, that is, ap- 
nexed to Mexico, desisting from the protests which it has made upon this subject for 
highly political considerations, proposes that Mexico should satisfy, as seems just, 
this indebtedness, for which each section is responsible in soUdum, and in which many 
establishments and persons in this republic are interested. The proposition seems 
just and equitable. 

The article therefore is modified and substituted with the following draft of agree- 
ment, which, with this explanation, he asks that it may be inserted in the protocol: 
"The plenipotentiaries, &c., having on this day provided in the agreement of bound- 



116 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

aries between Mexico and Guatemala tluit the Governiueut of Mexico shall release 
Chiapas from the obligation which she has ta share, as a province of the Kingdom 
of Guatemala in the time of the Spanish Government. For the purpose of terminat- 
ing this point it is stipulated as part of said treaty: (1.) Mexico shall give to Gua- 
temala $450,000 within one year, as the portion which bclougs to Chiapas and Socon- 
nsco under statistics ('xamine<l in tbe debt of the Kingdom of Guatemala anterior to 
the independence^ subject to rectilicatiou if the Government of Mexico thinks some 
is to be made, for which purpose tlie legation nr delegates shall be given full power 
in order that tbey may call for books and other necessary documents. (2.) Conse- 
quently the cicditors to said indebtedness, whether for ecclesiastical funds, revenue, 
poor pensions, annuities, or anything whatsoever, shall look in this rt^spi^ct t(» Guate- 
mala without having any claim against Chiapas or the Government of Mexico. (3.) 
For the ])nrpose of facilitating the arrangement to which article 1 refers and removing 
any doubt which the liquidation may offer, and in order the agreement may be ac- 
cepted by the Government of Mexico, a discount of 20 or 25 per cent, will be made 
on the part of Gnatenuila as soon as this agreement is accepted." 

On the (5th of Sei)tember, 1854, Senor Pa von presented a memorandum, a copy of 
which accomi)anies this communication. (luclosure No. 7.) 

In article 6 a claim is made for indemnification of the value of public 
lands and property. In the Ttli article the payment of the debt iaiputed 
to Chiapas is insisted ui)on. 

The plenipotentiary of Mexico expressed to Seiior Pavon on the 7th 
of July that in respect to the subject of the debt of the old captaincy- 
general of Guatemala his Government w^auld not consider the preten- 
sions of Guatemala admissible, that Mexico should pay the i)ortiou 
which belongs to Chiapas, for the following reasons: (1.) Because the 
republic of Gimtemala being part of what at one time formed the cap- 
taincy-general of its name, even supposing that the debt which is 
treated of to be reconcilable, Guatemala should be limited, as is natural 
and just, to answer for what was on her individual responsibility, and 
for nothing more. (2.) Because by article 1 of the treaty made between 
Mexico and Spain, the latter nation recognized the independence c.f all 
the countries Mexico was in possession of, and in which Chiapas was in- 
cluded. (3.) Because the part of the recognizable debt, if there was any, 
that might be fixed on Chiapas for the time in which she belonged to 
the captaincy-general, must be supposed to be included in what is called 
interior debt, acknowledged by the republic of Mexico anterior to the 
independence. 

On the 20th of August, 1855, Seiior Pereda presented to Senor Don 
Luis Batres, new representative from Guatemala, a declaration which, 
in the part relating to the debt, says : 

In regard to the indemnification indicated by Senor Pavon in tlie above n)emoran- 
dum for the Jinnexation of Chiapas, the Government of Mexico does not think it 
should accept the principle, nor I'onsent to make compensation for which it does not 
judge the nation oljliged. Chiapas, in anticipating the other provinces which with 
it formed the captaincy-general of Guatemala, to i)roclaim her independence on Sep- 
tendjer 3, 1821, and in adhering in the most solemn and s|)ontaneous manner to the 
plan made in Iguala on February 24, of the same year, by General Don Augustin de 
Iturbide, made use of a right which was cmnmon to all and to each one of the prov- 
inces that com))osed the dominions of Spain in this vast continent. But if by the an- 
nexation of that jirovince to Mexico there should have been any right to indemnifica- 
tion for pulilic land or for anything else, it seeins beyond doubt that such a right 
could only exist cm the part of Spain as sovereign or general ruler, as she was, of all 
these provinces; and under this supposition Mexico would be acquitted and released 
from such indemnification by the treaty of peace and friendship concluded in Madrid 
on the 28th of December, 1836. 

By article 1 of that treaty "Her Majesty the Queen Regent of all Spain, in the 
name of her august daughter, Isabel II, recognized the Mexican Republic as a free, 
sovereign, and independent nation, composed of the States and countries specified in 
its constitutional law ;" and amongst these States the.deparlment of Chiapas is men- 
tioned by name in that constitutional law. By the same article Her Catholic Majesty 
renounced all claim, not only to the Government but to the ownership and territorial 
jurisdiction of said States and countries. Here we have, therefore, all there is in re- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 117 

spect to the poiut of indemnity which is contended for on account of the annexation 
of Chiapas. 

Now in regard to the part which might belong to Chiapas in the particular debt of 
the old captaincy-general, and for which Mexico is claimed to be responsible, the 
above-named treaty does not in this respect work less in favor of the Mexican Re- 
public. Article 7 of it says as follows: "In consideration of that the republic of 
Mexico, by a law of its geueral Congress passed on July ::i8, 1824, has voluntarily and 
spontaneously recognized as her own and as national all indebtedness contracted 
upon her treasury by the Siiauish Government of the mother country and by its au- 
thorities, while they governed the now iude))endent nation of Mexico until they 
absolutely ceased to govern it in 18-21 ; and further, that there does not exist in said 
republic any confiscation of property which belonged to Spanish subjects, the Mex- 
ican Repnbiic ami Her Catholic Majesty, for tliemselves, their heirs, and successors, 
do mutually agree to desist from all claim or pretension which might arise on account 
of said points and to declare the two high contracting parties free and discharged 
from that hour forever from all responsibility in that respect." 

But eveu if the above-named treaty with Spain would not protect 
Mexico from all responsibility on this side, full protection will be offered 
to her, even with excess by the amount charged upon the old royal treas- 
uries of the intent lency of Chiapas. This sum reaches $569,056.66 pro- 
ceeding from consolidated funds, royal loans, deposits, and annuities, all 
from religious corporations and individuals of that province, as is found 
in the two schedules which accompany this declaration, prepared by the 
departmental treasury of Chiapas. According to the one which Senor 
D. Manuel Pavon presented in the ninth conference, and prepared by the 
auditor of Guatemala, there would correspond to Chiapas as her por- 
tion of the debt of the old captaincy general, the sum of $458,060.03, 
which when compared to the above gives a balance of $110,996.63 in 
favor of Chiapas. The negotiation was then interrupted. 

Besides Seijor Pereda, in the memorandum that contained his whole 
mission, which he undertook ardently and patriotically, referred to a 
fact which gives place to new and important observations upon the mat- 
ter now before me. The republics of Nicaragua and Costa Rica made 
sepatately a treaty with Spain, in which was an article "by which each 
one of those nations recognizes in the most formal and solemn manner, 
as a consolidated debt of the republic, the indebtedness, whatever kind 
it may be, for pensions, &c., that burden that old proo'mee of Spain, pro- 
vided that they proceed from direct orders of the Government, or its 
authorities, until the complete evacuation of the country." 

From this article two consequences of great importance may be de- 
duced. The tirst is that if those two provinces have adjusted respect- 
ively their debt anterior to the independence, the same right must be 
recognized in each one of the other provinces that formed the old king- 
dom of Guatemala; since all were equal and all proclaimed their sepa- 
ration from Spain without, by that act, bindiuir themselves together. 
And as Chiapas not only did that, but also in the most positive terms 
declared that she was separated from Guatemala, although the latter 
should be united to Mexico, it is clear that the indebtedness for which 
she would be resi)onsible belongs to the province, and as such it is com- 
prised in the treaty of 1836; because in it is recognized by Spain, as 
Mexico's own and national debt, the debt anterior to the independ- 
ence of the re]niblic, composed of States comprised in the constitu- 
tion, among which Chiapas is named. 

The second consequence is, that if each province has had the right to 
adjust its debt, and if that of Chiapas iscompi-ised in that of Mexico, 
Guatemala had no concern in this matter, as she had none in the ar- 
rangements made by Nicaragua and Costa Rica. And it must not be 
forgotten that each one of those republics in the treaty relative to the 
debt, did not call herself province of the Tcingdoin of Guatemala, but old 



118 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

province of Spain, it being' thus plainly demonsti'fited that each one was 
at liberty to act ; that in pioclainiin.ii' its independence from Spain, each 
one recovered its usurped sovereignty, and that consequently each one 
was responsible for its respective obligations. Let us suppose that Chia- 
pas, on Sei)teinberl2, 1824, in place of declaring herself united to Mexico, 
had declared herself constituted as an independent nation ; or that, 
having formed part of Central America, she should afterwards have sep- 
arated herself, as the other States, and to-day was a republic like the 
rest of the old federation. Is it not certain that in both cases she would 
have the same rights as Nicaragua and Costa Kica? And if, in use of 
her right, she should have made, like those two republics did, a treaty 
with Spain, could Guatemala have prevented or in any way intervened 
in the arrangement that would be made? Thereibre Chiapas, a State 
of the Mexican fedeiation, is as independent of Guatemala as she would 
be if she were a separate republic. Jn the latter case the debt would 
be her own ; in thetirst case it would attach to Mexico, as was provided 
in the treaty of 1830 ; but in neither <;ase can the right of Guatemala 
to demand pay be recognized ; nor much less to impose that payment 
as an indispensable condition to its consent, that a province equal to it 
could be annexed to Mexico. Has it been necessary for Salvador, Hon- 
duras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica to ask leave of Guatemala to form 
themselves into independent republics "? Why, therefore, is required of 
Chiapas what has not been required of the other provinces ? The six 
were alike dependent on the Si»anish Government ; tlie six were equally 
free in 1821 ; and it is certainly a strange thing tliat only in respect to 
Chiapas, does Guatemala pretend to exercise rights not only of govern- 
ment but of territorial sovereignty, claiming ownership over the public 
lands. What would Guatemala think if Nicaragua should ask indem- 
nity for the public lauds of Guatemala 1 What would she think of the 
same i)retensions on the part of Chiapas, an indei)endent republic? 
Guatemala was not sovereign to Chiapas; she was her sister; her asso- 
ciate. In fact the two were subject to the same ]>ower ; consequently 
there was no supremacy of any kind, and on separating both preserved 
their resj^ective domain over public ])roi)erty, and the same rights they 
had to their respective territory. And as Soconusco, in 1821, did not 
belongs to the ])rovince of Guatemala, but toth at of Chiapas, it is with- 
out doubt that, having been annexed to Mexico, together with Chiapas, 
the destiny of that State was settled, and Guatemala has no power to 
exercise any right of any kind within its limits. 

On the other hand, Senor Pereda, in comparing the liquidation made 
by the de5)aitmental treasury of Chiapas with tlie one made in Guate- 
mala, said : "That even admitting the legality of the indebtedness, there 
was a balance in favor of Mexico due by Guatemala." This observation 
becomes very powerful, if it is considered that to day the amount would 
not be still $458,000, but a very much larger sum, owing to the accrued 
interest since 1854. Suppose for a moment that (Uiatemala had a per- 
fect right, it would be necessary for her to prove that she had paid the 
interest from 1821 up to date; because in any other way Mexico would 
pay a consideiable sum for unpaid interest, the settlemenj; of which 
might possibly be obtained under very favorable arrangements; since 
the total debt in 1821, including the interest, being $24ir),.527.50, the 
part corres])onding to Chiapas being $211,052.75, according to the di- 
vision, which, without giving her a hearing, was made in the auditor's 
ofdce of Guatemala, on February 24, 1854. 

Moreover, if, as is deduced from the statement of S<*fior Pavou, as 
well as the memorandum of Seiior Uriarte of August 21, 1874, and from 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 119 

the communication of Senor Herrera, of January 14, 1882, the sum liqui- 
dated by the treasury of Ohia]}as is not included in the general debt of 
Central' America, there would be a notorious injustice in pretending that 
Mexico should pay a part of the debt of the other provinces, without 
the latter paying proportionally the special one of Chiapas, that has 
the same origin as the general one. It is seen, therefore, that under no 
circumstances can the Government of Mexico recognize a debt which 
Guatemala has no right to demand either for herself or by assuming the 
representation of the other provinces that formed her captaincy-general, 
because each one must only answer for the amounts which were specially 
charged on its own treasury, and to the security of which, as Seiior Pa- 
von said, teas specialli/ pledged the revenue of each province, which, on 
this account, was not obliged to answer for the debt of the others. 

Having the succinct examination which I have made of the ante- 
cedents of the question of limits bcjtween Mexico and Guatemala, and 
of the reasons wliy Mexico does not feel under obligation to pay the 
pecuniary indemnification that has been asked of her, it is well to explain 
the considerations which arise from the facts referred to. 

If these facts are examined impartially, and tlie observations that 
flow from them are studied, it will be impossible to find the reason on 
which Guatemala relies to sustain her pretensions in respect to Chiapas 
and Soconusco. Let the political or administrative relations of the 
provinces which formed the captaincy-general be what they may ; let 
the bonds which united those provinces be what they may, the former 
ceased and the latter was broken in 182L In proclaiming its independ- 
ence each province recovered the rights than had been totally taken 
from them by foreign domination, and became perfectly at liberty to 
constitute itself as might best conform to its peculiar interest. That 
freedom of action, which is a principle of unquestionable truth, is the 
recognition of the sovereignty of the people, the foundation of modern 
society, and the essential fundament of the Mexican federation, as it 
was of the federation of Central America. If Chiapas should have 
formed part of Central America in 1823, and afterwards should have 
separated herself as the other States did, would Guatemala have the 
right to prevent the formation of a new republic? Would she have a 
right to give her consent, imposing conditions and making protests °? 
Consent supposes superiority in the one who gives it ; those that are 
equal among themselves do not ask for consent to act, and Chiapas, 
neither to constitute herself an independent nation, nor to declare her-^ 
self a State of the Mexican federation, never had to ask the consent of 
Guatemala, as Guatemala did not have to obtain the consent of Spain 
in 1821. 

But even destroying all political piinciples, even supposing possible 
the inheritance of the illegitimate dominion which the King of Spain 
exercised in this part of the world, the right would not be in Guatemala, 
but first in the old captaincy-genei'al and afterwards in the federation 
of Central America. The circumstance, merely accidental, of the city 
of Guatemala having been the capital of both, as at some time Salvador 
was the capital of the second, is utterly insignificant in this case. The 
provinces were united by force under the Spanish scepter ; the States 
were voluntarily united by the federation. Why, therefore, has a con- 
quered province to have a right over one of her sisters in misfortune? 
Why has a free State to have a right, over a State equally free "? The 
captaincy -general — that is, the King of Spain — might in good will have 
been opposed to the independence of Chiapas, but he was not able to 
do it; consequently since September 3, 1821, the tie which united that 



120 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

province with the others has been broken. The federation of Central 
America could not have any more rights than those which were conceded 
to it by the spontaneous will of the States that formed it in 1823. On 
July 21, of that same year Central America declared that — 

If Chia])as wished 1o be annexed to it, she would be received with thejireatest pleas- 
ure, and that it she should think it more in confbruiity with her interest to remain 
se])arat«'d, it would not oppose her, as she could and should eternally rely upon the 
fiiendshij), tVaternity, and services of the State of Guatemala. 

This sok^mn recognition of the supreme junta of Chiapas closed for- 
ever the door to all claim on the part of Central America, which not 
only did not ])reserve any rights, but rather contracted a formal obliga- 
tion to respect the decision of the junta and to be eternally the friend, 
the sister of Chiapas. And as this province, on September 12, 1824, de- 
clared a io he more in conformity with her interest to remain .separated from 
Guatemala and to he tiniied to Mexico, it is beyond all doubt that Central 
America had no right to resist the formation of that State of the Mex- 
ican federation. 

The union of Central America destroyed, the provinces were at per- 
fect liberty ; and in use of it each one constituted itself as it thought 
best, without the necessity of the consent of the others. What is, there- 
fore, the right of Guatemala ? It was the capital of the old kingdom ; 
but, as I have said before, this circumstance is in every respect insig- 
nificant. It is the boundary of Chiapa ; but vicinity does not give 
dominion, and this circumstance only proves the necessity of marking 
out the limits, which is what Mexico has been trying to realize for half 
a century. It is therefore demonstrated that Guatemala has no right 
to oppose the incorporation of Chiapa in the liepublic of Mexico. 

In regard to Socohusco, I have also shown that its incorporation was 
equally legitimate. I Mill only repeat, because it is the only title that 
Guatemala has presented, that even supi»osing the second vote of Tapa- 
chula, made in July, 1824, to be entirely legal, Guatemala did not ac- 
quire rights of any kind, because the vote did not unite the province 
of Soconusco to said State, but declared it '''■part </ the supreme Govern- 
ment of the Ignited Fr< vinces of Central America.-- Cons-equently, this 
federation dissolved ; Soconusco was entirely free, and if in it Guate- 
mala aiterwards exercised any authority, that fact was due solely to the 
toleration of the Government of Mexico ; but that fact cannot constitute 
a right. 

Against all this Guatemala alleges: That Chiapa and Soconusco did 
not act with liberty in being incorporated into Mexico, having given 
way to military pressure, to undue intluence, and to intrigues carried on 
by the Mexicans. 

Laying aside what is vague and calumnious in these imputations, 
which are so common in cases like the present, I will examine those acts 
which, at first sight, may appear to give some ground for complaint. 
Those acts iirc the dissolution of the junta, executed by General Don 
Vincente Filisola : the disarming of Chiapa ; the proximity of the 
Mexican troops; the presence of the commissioner in the junta; the 
protest of Tuxthi; the refusal of Mexico to submit the matter to the 
Congress of Panama; and the presence of the Mexican forces in Soco- 
nusco in 1842. 

I have said before that the dissolution of the supreme junta was 
the result of the news which they had in Mexico about the condition 
of Chiapa. That information in substance was well founded, because 
it is beyond doubt that in the first six months of 1823 the province of 
Chiapa saw herself strongly combated by the most opposite interest. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 121 

Th« chiefs in the revolution against the empire spoke in one sense, 
Filosola in another. The friends of Mexico brought within their lines 
a portion of the inhabitants ; those of Guatemala brought within theirs 
another part. In the one there was the desire to preserve ; in the other 
the desire to recover. And in the midst of this whirlwind of opinion, 
an opening was made for the flattering idea of absolute independence, 
which would naturally dazzle with the cheerful outlook of the erection 
of a soverigu nation. And as the persons who communicated this in- 
formation belonged to some one of those parties, they necessarily ex- 
aggerated it, drawing pictures, although true in substance, were incor- 
rect in details and in the causes of the occurrences, such being the 
tendency' of the men who figured in the province. Therefore the opin- 
ion was formed that Chiapa ran great danger, but in a very few days the 
Government of Mexico saw clearly, and a month after the call of the pro- 
vincial deputation was disposed of it concluded to leave things in statu 
gnoj the dissolution of the junta was a transitory act, and its reinstal- 
lation was theclearestpi oof of the good faith of the Mexican Government, 
which with a few battalions could have imposed, although unduly, its 
will not only on Chiapa, but on Central America, which still struggled 
to constitute herself, and which was herself passing through a period 
of serious difficulties. 

The disarming of Chiapa, far from serving against Mexico, serves 
in her favor, since by it she deprived herself of the strong support which 
the influence of the military chiefs could give her. And as among the 
latter there w^ere some partisans of Guatemala, who, far from laying 
down their arms, formed the insurrection in Tuxtla, who has just rea- 
sons for complaint in this particular, not Guatemala, but Mexico, who 
lost while Central America gained. 

1 have already said that when the incorporation was decreed there 
were no Mexican troops in Chiapa nor at a distance of several miles 
from it; consequently the charge' founded on the military pressure is 
reduced to the personal opinion o1 Minister Zebadua, not being very 
favorable to the inhabitants of Chiapa, of the intention of the Mexi- 
can Government, which amounts to saying that if any nation should 
place 500 men on the frontier of Chiapa, it would be sufficient to de- 
prive the supreme junta of it^ liberty. An idea never carried into ef- 
fect cannot produce fear, and the argument so founded falls by its own 
weakness. 

I have also said th at when the commissioner arrived in Chiapa the 
districts had already voted, the computation of said votes being the act 
performed by the junta in the presence of that representative. He 
could not, therefore, have exercised any influence, and, inoreover, Guate- 
mala could have been but did not wish to be a witness to that solemn 
declaration. 

The piotest of Tuxtla was unanimously revoked in the meeting which 
was held on October 7, 1824, as soon as the citizens became persuaded 
of the advantages which would accrue to their district by annexation to 
Mexico; advantages wiiich probably they would have been deprived 
of by the enemies to the incorporation, who at the same time jierhaps 
exaggerated the dangers. 

As Guatemala, in i)rotesting in 1842 against the incori)orati(>n of So- 
conusco, mentions her proposition relative to submitting the decision of 
the question to the Cougressof Panama, bringing in thereby a new charge 
against Mexico, I must say that it was not the fear of laying before 
that respectable tribunal a matter whose justice is proved that caused 
the Government of Mexico to refuse, but it was the opinion so fully ex- 



122 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

pressed by the national Conj^ress that rejected the clause in which the 
Republic of Colombia proposed that that Con^i>ress, representative of 
all the Spanish American nations, should liave the characterof umpire. 
So it appears in the text of the treaty. This reason of complaint, there 
fore, has no foundation. 

lu respect to the i)resence of the Mexican troo))S which, under Colonel 
Aguiiyo, Mcnt to pirrison Soconnsco in 1842, 1 have ahvady said, and I 
must repeat, that Mexico was called upon by the authorities and citi- 
zens of that district, and that she only made use of the right which the 
act of May 3, and the declaiation of September 12, 1824, gave her; it 
being certaiidy very notable that tlie name of obligatory agreement is 
given to a project which, as 1 have fully shown, never had the character 
of an international compact. 

In the preceding paragraphs it has been necessary for me to repeat 
the observations made before, for the purpose of | resenting all together 
the principal reasons on which Central America at one time grounded, 
and Guateumla now grounds, their complaint that the incorporation of 
Chiapa and Soconnsco was due to abuses on the ])art of Mexico, which, 
far from acknowledging herself responsible for such charges, has against 
that nation very important claims, which, without prejudice to the pres- 
ent negotiation, she shall duly present in just defense of the rights of the 
republic and of the interest other citizens. 

It is therefore proved that there were no such abuses In the incorpo- 
rations of Chiapa and Soconnsco ; but even admitting, without conced- 
ing, that there was some irregularity, what does this amount to in the 
face of the solemn ratitication founded on the acquiescence of the people 
of Chiapa and Soconnsco? The first for fifty one years and the second 
for thirty-three, have not made a single protest, have not ex])ressed a 
single complaint, have not indicated any dissatisfaction whatever for 
their annexation to Mexico. They have suffered, like the other Mexi- 
cans, the evils of civil war and of foreign invasions; they have enjoyed 
the benefits of liberty and felt the tyranny of dictatorship, and with their 
talent in council, and their blood in battle, they have contributed to the 
defense of the national interest, A State of the federal republic, dei)art- 
ment of the central republic, Chiapa has been, during the long period 
of our eventful political life, the same province that spontaneously 
united itself to Mexico on September 3, 1821. When, in 1847, the fed- 
eral Government was leduced to a few cities, without a treasury, with- 
out an army, and obliged to give way to the terrible law of war, why 
did not Chiapa se])arate herself from a people so aftiicted by misfortune? 
When, in LSlJ"), the federal Governmeut was pushed by ])ublic mis- 
fortune to Paso del Norte, why did not Chiaj);)., situated at the other 
extreme of the country, an<l at a distance of 800 leagues, separate her- 
self from a nation almost entirely governed by a foreign power? Those 
events, and several others, have been auspicious occasions for Chiapa 
to show any grudge she might have had against Mexico, to express the 
desire of abandoning the country, which she freely chose, and to whose 
destiny, prosperous or adverse, she had remained united with the most 
perfect liberty. If the State of Chiapa should be situated in the center 
of the republic, it could be said, the supposition being out of the limits 
of possibility, that her position by itself tied her hands, since any act 
on her part could be suppressed in a day. But situated in an extremity 
of the country and separated from the center by 300 leagues of really 
difficult roads, her constant fidelity is not the work of fear, but the 
worthy fruit of a sentiment as noble as it is spontaneous. 

" What reasons," said Senor Lafragua in the note of October 20, 1873, 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 125 

"can be alleged in the presence of a will so firm? What titles are 
worth so miicli as a faith so constant? What rigbt is more solid than 
that wLich is fouuded on patriotism, so loyal and so refined*?" In fact 
the simple donbt wonld be an offense, the more nnmerited the more 
cruel; and this is the reason why the Government of Mexico cannot 
admit any discussion upon tlie possession of Chiapa and Soconusco. 

Guatemala also blames Mexico for the delay which the termination of 
this matter has suffered ; and tbis blame is also unfounded. From 1825 
until to-day, Mexico has constantly proposed the immediate designation 
of the boundaries. So it appears in the communications of Sehor Ala- 
man, and in the protocol of Seiiors D. Manuel Diez de Bonilla and D. 
Juan Nej)onmceno de Pereda, envoys of Mexico in that republic. Gua- 
temala, on the contrary, has always evaded the designation of the bound- 
aries, pretending the preservation of the statu quo, and thus postpon- 
ing indefinitely the settlement of such an important matter. " My Gov- 
ernment instructs me," said Senor Mayorga, on August 31, 1825, " to 
propose to that of .your excellency that this dispute be terminated by 
means of a treaty, leaving in the mean time things in statu quo^ Article 
1 of the project presented by Senor D. Pedro Molino to Senor D. Manuel 
Diez de Bonilla, on April 14, 1832, said " that the differences or oj)posite 
pretensions should be terminated by amicable means or by thearbirration 
of another friendly nation;" and in discussing Article 13, he proposed that 
it should be said : " The commerce on the frontier, on the boundaries of 
both republics, &c., since his Government could not give up its right to the 
State of Chiapa." Senor D. Manuel PavOn, on March 3, 1854, proposed: 

The border lines of Chiapa and Soconusco, on this side of Gnatemala*, like those 
of the district of Petfu on the Yucatan side, all of them as have been recognized 
since before the independenci^, when said territories were part of the captaincy of 
Guatemala, shall continue to be as they are to-day, the boundaries or frontiers of the 
republics of Mexico and Guatemala. 

Senor Pereda having proposed that, in order to fix the dividing line, 
a commission of surveyors and civil engineers should be appointed, 
Seiior Pavon objected in the terras which are set forth in the copy an- 
nexed to that part of the ])rotocol. (Inclosure No. 8.) 

On October 4, 1854, Seiior Pavon said in the thirteenth conference: 

In respect to the project of the treaty of lin)its presented in the same conference by 
Senor Pereda, lie declares, with tlie gieatest regret, that he has not the power to ac- 
cept it, and ans^'ers it with the observations and articles which are containt'd in the 
memorandum, which he exhibits in duplicate, signed September 6, y)roximo; of which 
he asks that one copy be annexed to the protocol of the conferences; and that the 
other be sent by Senor Pereda to his Government, of whose recognized intelligence 
Guatemala can do no less than exiiect a favorable reception, much more so taking 
into account the sympathies so often shown by his most serene highness. President 
D. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, towards the Government of his excellency, General 
Carrera. 

In the memorandum a copy of which is inclosed, Seiior Pavon said : 

That on repeated occasions it has been proposed to the plenipotentiary of Mexico to give 
up the tindertaJcing to i\iiike thti special treaty suggested by him one named o/ Zimirs. 

And in Article 1 of his project of a treaty he proposed "that the 
boundaries between both republics shall continue to be what they ac- 
tually are," &c. In that conference Seiior Pereda insisted; and Seiior 
Pavon not only repeated that there were obstacles in the way of accept- 
ing the treaty of limits, but also confessed that the Mexican minister had 
constantly called his attention, in different private conversations, to the 
points which he has indicated, concluding by distinctly declaring that 
on the part of Guatemala the negotiations were in statu quo. 



124 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 

On July 3, 1855, Sefior Pereda again insisted upon tbe designation of 
the boundaries ; aud Sefior D. Luis Batres, then representative of Gua- 
temala, repeating the declarations of Sefior Pavon " that it did not seem 
possible to execute any agreement except upon the principles of the 
memorandum, offered to look for some way, if possible, to overcome the 
difficulties which occur between the memorandum of Sefior Pavon and 
the declaration of Sefior Pereda. 

The following events, which I have already referred to, prove that all 
the delays in the designation of the boundaries have been caused by 
■Guatemala, since she has wished to make the designation of limits de- 
pend upon conditions unacceptable to Mexico, with the hope of obtain- 
ing what in the actual state of things is an impossibility. 

Those official documents plainly prove who is to blame for the delay. 
Mexico has constantly tried for the designation of the boundaries, be- 
cause she has considered it the only means of closing the door against 
claims which, perhaps of little importance in their origin, may be con- 
verted in the course of time into matters of great imj^ortance. Guate- 
mala, on the contrary, has constantly opi^osed the designation of the 
boundaries, and has always pretended the ])reservation of the statu quo, 
leaving open in this manner a wide door to trouble among the individu- 
als, which later may be converted into conflicts between the Govern- 
ments. But all the earnest desire of Mexico has been made sterile ow- 
ing to the earnestner.s with which Guatemala has maintained the rights 
which she thinks she has over Chiapa and Soconusco. Expecting 
some day to recover those places, or obtain pecuniary compensation, she 
has refused to put an end to a matter prejudicial to both nations, try- 
ing to make treaties of another kind, which cannot produce a good effect, 
while the material possession is not defined, in which each Government 
■can exercise the authority that corresponds to it by law. It is certain, 
as Seilor Uriarte said in his memorandum of August 21, 1874, that in 
1854 Guatemala agreed to the incorporation of Chiapa and Soconusco, 
but did not consent to the nominal designation of limits, since, as always, 
she insisted upon the statu quo. Accordingly, as appears in article 1 of 
the memorandum of Sefior Pavon, " The Jim its heticeen both republics 
shall continue to he what they actually a) e." This phrase clearlv expresses 
the invariable idea of Guatemala, not to mark out the limits, and to 
leave by these means on foot all motives for trouble, and to leave alive 
all the elemeuts of future conflict between the two nations. Moreover, 
the deference of Guatemala in 1854 had for its foundation the payment 
of a debt which Mexico cannot recognize, and the claim in regard to 
the public lands, which can .neither be admitted, on account of having 
no foundation. It is difficult, indeed, to find the reason on which Gua- 
temala relies to resist the designation of limits, because it is not i>ossi- 
ble even to suppose that that resistance involves the idea of preserv- 
ing the rights which have been maintained up to this time, and the 
hopes which to this day have been kept alive. It is therefore in every 
way indispensable to put an end to a matter which has already done 
•evil to the two countiies, and which is so important for the future wel- 
fare of the two republics, which must live in the most perfect harmony. 

The j)olitical disturbances which took place in the Mexican Republic 
from 1854 to 1801. the commencement of the French intervention, and 
those which brought about this same intervention u]) to 18(i7, prevented 
Mexico from even discussing this question and attending in any manner 
to Chiapa and Soconusco, especially this department, which was really 
left during all this period at the mercy of the Government of Guate- 
mala. After the close of the French intervention and there-establishment 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 125 

of peace, the G-overnment of Griiatemalci accredited, as its representa- 
tive in Mexico, Mr. Manuel Garcia Granados, who broached again this 
question, stating that Socouusco belonged to Gnatemahi. The Govern- 
ment of Mexico replied to liim, on the 20th of October, 1873, that Mexico 
could not admit any discussion in reganl to the legitimacy with which 
Chiapa and Socouusco were integral parts of the united Mexican States. 
The representative of Guatemala did not give any answer to this note. 

Mr. Ramon Uriart ■ arrived later at Mexico, with the character of 
envoy extraordinary of Guatemala, and presented, on the 21st of 
August, 1874, a memorandum wherein he tried to maintain that the in- 
corporation of Chiapa and Socouusco to Mexico was illegal, and pro- 
posed' a boundary line which left the greatest part of Socouusco on the 
side of Guatemala. 

I inclose you, marked number 7, a copy of Mr. Uriarte's memorandum. 

Mr. Jos6 Maria Lafragua, secretary, at that time, of foreign affairs, 
replied at length, on the 9th of October, 1875, to the memorandum of 
Mr. Uriarte, going into a detailed and reasoned discussion of all the 
incidents of this matter which is condensed in this note, and ending 
with proposing a dratt of a boundary treaty recognizing the line that 
had in fact existed between the old province, at present State of Chiapa, 
including Socouusco, and the republic of Guatemala, 

I inclose you copy of Mr. Lafragua's draft of the treaty and the frag- 
ments of his note of October 9, 1875, which refer to the foundations that 
he had to propose the said boundary line. The printed pamphlet which 
I sent to you with my note of the 9th of March, 1882, contains an ab- 
stract of this communication (Document No. III). 

The representative of Guatemala did not reply at that time to this 
proposal; but later on the 7th of December, 1877, the said Mr. Uriarte, 
who was yet envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Gua- 
temala at Mexico, signed a treaty, with the secretary of foreign relations 
of that republic, wherein it was agreed that a commission, composed 
of two sections of engineers, appointed, respectively, by each of the con- 
tracting parties, should make a i>reliminary study of the ground over 
which it was considered that the line was to be located, designating at 
once the points which were to be more specially studied and the geograph- 
ical position of which was to be hxed astronomically. 1 inclose you a 
copy of this treaty (No. 9). 

These points are the same which are contained in the draft of the 
treaty presented by Mr. Lafragua on the 9th of October, 1875, and it 
seems clear that the Government of Guatemala, on accepting the same, 
and the study of these points, acknowledged, though indirectly, that 
the boundary line was to pass over them, that is to say, that Chiapa 
and Socouusco were to remain, as they are, integral parts of the Mexi- 
can confederation. 

Mr. Montufar said, in the communication which he addressed to the 
Department of State, on the 2d of November, 1881, that this treaty had 
a hidden purpose. It seems to me that this censure does little honor to 
him and to the Government of his country, since he was secretary of 
foreign relations of Guatemala when the treaty was ratified by his Gov- 
ernment, although he personally may not have signed said ratification. 

This treaty had, however, no hidden design, but simply the object of 
making a preliminary study of the ground over which the boundary 
line was to be located. It is true that this study could have been made 
without the need of a treaty, but Guatemala preferred to do it by means 
of a treaty; and it seems strange that after having signed and ratified 
it she should assume the character of a person deceived and injured 



126 BOUNDARY BETVVEKN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

thereby. Besides, the treaty referred not only to the preliminary studj 
of the ground, but contained also other stipnlatimis the object of which 
was to avoid any difficulty between the two countries while this study 
was pending. This reconnaissance couhl not be made within the time 
specified in the treaty, nor in the extension which was after agreed u[)OU, 
and although Mexico has tried to have said line extended again so as to 
flnish the pending reconnaissance, she has not succieeded in it, because 
Guatemala refused its consent. The Mexican couimissiou of engineers 
has, however, continued its reconnaissance on the ground, with the ob- 
ject of gathering the necessary data which would permit an intelligent 
discussion of this matter and the easy and prompt termination thereof. 
After the Government of Guatemala had communicated to the repre- 
sentative of the United States in that city her determination to cede 
Soconusco, or at least her right over that territory, to a foreign power, 
hinting that in this cession she wouhl prefer the United States, and in 
case tliey would not accept it, to offer it to an European nation, and 
after the Government of the United States, in compliance with Guate- 
mala's wishes, had offered its mediation to Mexico, Mr. Manuel Herrera, 
jr., envoy extraordinary and minister plenii)otentiary of Guatemala at 
Mexico, concerning whom General Barrios, president of that country, 
stated in his message, read at the opening of the present session of the 
Guatemalan Congress the 1st of March of this year, that he was fully 
authorized to sign a treaty which would terminate in a friendly way 
the questions pending with Mexico, said Mr. Herrera addressed a com- 
munication to the secretary of foi'eign relations of Mexico, on the 14th 
of January of the present year, inclosing the draft of a boundary treaty 
between both countries, the article first of which says literally as fol- 
lows: 

I. The rights which the Mexican Republic has or pretends to have over the State 
ofCiiiapa or its (lei)artnii'nt of Sockhusco shall not he either dirccrly or indirectly 
subjected to discussion. The republic of Guateuiala freely and spontaneously ti'ans- 
fers to that of Mexico the rights which she has or pret.uds to have over said territory 
of Chiapa, including Soconusco. 

It is true that in Article VI of said draft a pecuniary Indemnity is 
proposed, payable 1)y Mexico to Guatemala, in consideration of which 
she desists from all discussion concerning the rights relative to Chiapa 
and Soconusco; but besides, the Government of Mexico having stated, 
since the 0th of October, 1875, that she cannot pay any indemnity for a 
thing which belongs to her and which cannot with any foundation be a 
matter of dispute, there not being any reason or right whatever on which 
to ground it, the payment of an indemnity, supposing that one should 
be granted, would not affect essentially the question, and it demonstrates 
at the sauK^ time tliat tlie Government of Guatemala is disposed, at least 
if its official manifestations are to be credited, to acknowledge a fact 
founded on the free consent of the people, to wit, the legitimacy with 
which the State of Chiapa and its department of Soconusco are integral 
parts of the Mexican nation. I inclose you (No, 10) a copy of said draft. 

Summing up all the argumeutof the present note, the following points 
have been proved : 

1. Chiapa was a province on terms of equality with the others which 
formed the captaincy-general of Guatemala. 

2. Chiapa, on the 3d of Sei)tember, 1821, spontaneously separated 
from Guatemala and united herself to Mexico. 

3. Chiapa, on the 12th of September, 1824, again united herself to 
the United States of Mexico, by the free vote of the majority of her in- 
habitants. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 127 

4. Soconusco, in 1821, was a partido of the inteudency of Ohiapa, and 
as such united herself to the Mexican Empire. 

5. Soconusco, in 1824, was lig-itimately represented in the supreme 
junta of Chiapa, and freely voted for annexation to Mexico on the 3d 
of May. 

6. The act signed at Tapachula, on the 24th of July, 1824, was a rev- 
olutionary document, and was illegal from every point of view. 

7. Central America^ recognized the supreme junta of Ohiapa, and 
offered to respect its determination. 

8. The decree of August 18, 1824, by which the federal Congress de- 
clared that Soconusco, l)y virtue of htr pronunciamiento, had united with 
Central America, was a usurption of the rights of Mexico. 

9. The notes exchanged between the ministers, Alaman, and Mayorga, 
did not constitute a legal agreement. 

10. The decrev' of October 31, 1825, by modifying the essence of the 
propositions of tlie Mexican minister, left them without effect. 

11. The neutrality in which Soconusco remained de facto was many 
times violated by Guatemala. 

12. No act of Mexican authorities recognizing such neutrality could 
be valid, since any treaty required the apjirobation of Congress. 

13. Mexico was under no obligation to respect such neuti ality. Con- 
sequently, when she occupied Soconusco in 1842, she infringed no in- 
ternational compact, and only made use of the right given her by the 
vote of May 3, and the declaration of September 12, 1824. 

14. Soconusco, in 1842, was free to unite herself again to Mexico; for, 
even supposing legitimate the act of July, 1824, the district was thereby 
united to Central America, not to Guatemala ; therefore, when that fed- 
eration was dissolved, Guatemala had no rights of any kind. 

15. The military pressure, the intrigues, and other abuses which 
Guatemala has imputed to Mexico are not proved, while, on the contrary, 
it is proved that in September, 1824, there were no Mexican troops in 
Chiapa, and that those commanded by Colonel Aguayo in 1842 were 
invited thither by the inliabitants of Soconusco. 

16. Any supposable irregularity in the incorporation of Chiapa and of 
Soconusco has been entirely validated by the constant union of those regions 
during fifty-seven years in the first case, and during forty years in the second 
case,* in tchich lapse of time they have not presented a single complaint nor 
indicated any repugnance to continue attached to the Mexican Bcpublic. 

17. Kespecting the public lands, the claim of Guatemala is entirely 
inadmissible, since she has no rights whatever upon the territory of 
Chiapas. 

18. The debt of Chiapa ,is included in that of Medco, which is con- 
sequently not responsible for it to Guatemala; from whom she might, 
on the contrary, more properly demand a certain amount, as the differ- 
ence between that debt and the general one of Central America. 

19. The delays of so many years in the settlement of this question are 
due to Guatemala, who has always opposed the tracing of limits, which 
has continually been urged by the Government of Mexico. 

As you will see, the detailed and justified statement which I have 
just made of the facts that brought about the present difficulties be- 
tween Mexico and Guatemala, serves to demonstrate the accuracy of 
the ideas expressed by me in the note which I had the honor to ad- 
dress to you on the 9th of March last, although I briefly outlined therein 
only the present state of this question, without going into details. 

I think proper, before closing this note, to state that I do not under- 
stand how a nation can offer to another the cession of a territory which 



128 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

does not belong to her, and which she is not in possession of, but is- 
possessed by another which fonnds its position on such grounds as the 
free and spontaneous will of the people inl)abitiiig that territory. The 
foundation alleged to act thus, to wit, tliat Guatemala in order to get 
rid of supposed stratagems, wislies to interpose a more powerful nation 
than Mexico between her territory and that of her actual neighbor 
cannot be more insufficient, since following the same kind of reasoning 
of the Guateuuilan Government the more powerful the nation interi)Osed 
between Mexico and Guatemala, the greatest wonld be the dangers for 
the latter. 

Nothing demonstrates better the want of fairness in the conduct of 
the Guatemalan Government in this matter, than what appears from 
the documents published by the United States Senate and from those 
whicli I now send annexed to this note. The Government of Guatemala 
certainly stated to that of the United States, through its rejiresentative 
at that (;ity, that Mexi(;o had conquered two other provinces and wanted 
to conquer the rest of the country ; and that in order to prevent it, they 
solicitetl the protection of the United States, even offering them the ter- 
ritory in disi)ute, and if the United States did not grant her this protec- 
tion they wouUl have to ask it of some European Government. At the 
same time that this was done, the re})resentative of Guatemahi at Mexico 
stated to the Mexican Government that the only reason they had had 
not to recognize the legitimacy with which Chiapa and Soconusco were 
l)art of the Mexican Confederation, was a punctilio of self love and of 
national honor; but that they would make that acknowledgment if 
Mexico i)aid a sum of money of more or less importance ; and while the 
United States, in consideration of the efforts made by Guatemala, were 
offering to Mexico to act as arbitrators in the matter, the representa- 
tive of Guatemala at Mexico was trying to settle it, considering himself 
satisfied with the payment of a sum of money. 

Besides, the same Guatemalan minister at Mexico, who was fully au- 
thorized by his Government to settle this question stated to Mr. Mor- 
gan, as this diplomat informed the State Department in a note of August 
11, 1881, that Guatemala would accept the arbitration of the United 
States, with the condition that it would be verbally stipulated that the 
President of the United States should de(;ide that Ghiapa belongs to 
Mexico, and Mr. Herrera added that this was simply a question of ])ride 
for his country, as he did not believe that it could in any case be de- 
cided in their favor, but that notwithstanding that they wouhl not give 
it up. 

The Hon. James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States^ 
on receiving the above communication of Morgan, accepted the sugges- 
tion made therein, and in his note of November 28, 1881, wherein he 
reiterated to Mexico the otfer of mediation of the United States in this 
question, and proposed it already in the terms indicated by Mr. Morgan^ 
that is, with the understanding that no doubt was entertained of the 
right of Mexico to consider the state of Chiapa, which comprises So- 
conusco as one of its departments, as integral parts of Mexico ; this was 
not done, as Mr. Morgan ])roi)osed, by means of a verbal agreement^ 
but was consigned, in said communication, to writing, in order to give 
it more force. 

The consequences derived from these facts are too clear for me to 
think necessary to detain myself in enumerating them. 

I am afraid of having trespassed on your benevolence by making this 
long statement of the facts in which Mexico grounds her rights in this 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 129 

case, but I have thought it my duty to do it, in view of the considera- 
tions which I stated at the commencement of the communication. 

I have the honor to renew to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my 
very distinguished consideration. 

M. ROMERO. 

Hon. FkEDERICK T. FRELINaHUYSBN, 

<&c., &c.^ &c. 



[Tnolosure No. 1.] 

Two aeals. One cuartillo (3i cents). Seal fonrth. One cnartillo (% cents). Years 

1820 and 1821. 

Don Engenio Jo86 Rniz, a notary pnblic of this city and secretary of the most notable 
council of the same, &c., certifies that this most notable council, accompanied by its 
president, governor, intendant, political superior chief, Don Juan Nepomuceno Batres, 
having jnstly taken in consideration the desired happiness of these inhabitants who 
oonstautly and publicly have declared their deliberate desire to embrace with their 
natural love the independence of this continent from the peuinsala, in accordance 
With what has been ordered by the heroic Generalissimo Don Agustiu de Iturbide, 
saviour and father of the country and religion, resolved on the 3d instant to proclaim 
said independence with proper solemnity and pomp, as it was done on the next day, 
with the attendance of troops and military music and a general peal, agreeing on the 
6th instant to swear thereto on the 8th instant, a memorable day for all the inhabi- 
tants, as it appears from the following document : 

"In this royal city of Chiapa, on the 8th of September, 1821, and in this city hall at 
8 o'clock a. m., the members of this notable council, presided by the intendant 
Mayor Don Juan Nepomuceno Batres met, to which the secular and regular prelates, 
the officers of all the departnii-nts and the military officers of these companies were 
incorporated. On the main table were placed the holy image of Christ and the book 
of the Gospel, which was read by the vicar-general, governor of the bishopric, on ac- 
count of the death of the most illustrious Doctor Don Salvador Samartin. Bachelor 
Don Lino Garcia and said governor intendant approached the table, and placing his 
left hand upon the holy Gospel and his right hand upon the hilt of his sword, said 
priest received his oath in the following terms: Do you swear before God, and do you 
promise by the cross of your sword to uphold the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion? 
I swear. Do you swear to achieve the independence of the empire without detriment 
%o the peace and union of Europeans and Americans? I swear. Do j^ou swear obe- 
dience to Sefior Don Feruand VII, provided he adopts and swears the constitution to 
be e'iforce<l by the Cortes of this Northern America? I swear. If you do so, may 
the Lord God of the armies and of peace help you, and if you do not, he may rebuke 
you. Then said intendant received a similar oath from the notable council, from the 
military officers, and the one which corresponded to the corporations, having made the 
same before the commandant of the companies, which were paraded for the purpose 
in this plaza mayor ; and having finished said oath with salutes of fire-arms and other 
signs of joy which all showed with the greatest good-will, order, and enthusiasm, said 
governor intendant went, in company with this notable council and corporations, to 
the Holy Cathedral Church to attend mass and listen to the sermon, allusive to the 
circumstances, by the Rev. Father of the province, belonging to the order of Santo 
Domingo Fr. Vicente Veves and a Te Deum as a signal of thanks to the Almighty 
and Lord of Peace and in said church the clergy and the people were duly sworn accord- 
ing to the above-said form before said governor of the bishopric. This act, as reli- 
gious as solemn, once finished, the gentlemen returned to the city hall after several 
salutes and adjourned, showing both them and the troops pleasure and joy. In testi- 
mony whereof they put their signatures before me: Juau Nepomuceno I3atres, Jos6 
Ignacio Lorrainzor, .Jos6 Diego Lara, Julio Jos6 Flores, Jo36 Nicolas Osana, Estebaa 
(^rdillo, Lie Jos6 Vivos." 

And in order to apprise of this to the most excellent Sefior Don Agustin Iturbide, 
I issue this document to which I write ray signature in this royal city of Chiapa on 
the 8th of September, 1821, a memorable day. 

EUGENIO JOSfi RUIZ. 
A true translation. 
Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. 

CAYETANO ROMERO, 

Secretary ad interim. 
E. Ex.. 154 9 



130 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Two seals. One riiartillo (:iJr cats). Seal fourth. Ono. cn;irtillu (:H cents). 

Yoars 1820 and 1821. 

In the royal city of Cbiapa on th(^ evening of the 2(ith of Sf^pteniber of .said year 
1821, and in accordance witli the preceding agreement, all the corporations, prelates, 
seculars and rcgnlars, neighbors and other inhabitants met in the- hall of the 
library of the Seminary College, wh«'re the agreement and deliberation of Guate- 
mala of the loth inistant in regard to the independcTice wa.s read aloud before the 
constitutional council x>resided by the governor intendaut ])olitical superior chief. 

The i)lan of the most excellent Senor Don Agnstin Iturbide was also read and like- 
wise the treaty resulting from the interview of the same with the most excellent 
Senor Don Juan de O'Donojn (of which the Board of Guatemala until now cannot 
have the least knowledge) ; with these precedents a long and protracted discussion 
began, the resnit of which was to resolve — 

That said Board has swerved from several of the principal articles of said plan; 
that in fact they are aiming at the division and separation of the Northern Empire; 
that before its unfortunate conquest the kingdom of Guatemala has always been a 
part of said empire-; that as there must be only one monarch for the sam.e empire 
the existence of several congresses or Cortes is incompatible; that it becomes doubt- 
ful in Guatemala, the very essential point of the absolute and general independence, 
notwithstanding the fact that a newspaper printed in said capital has taken for 
granted that the political liberty is absolute and does not admit more or less ; that 
likewise it repels permissions and restrictions, and all that is not the liV-.erty that a 
people have to dispose of itself, but bondage ; that it is considered that the Board 
did not approve that the cities and people of this intendance would anticipate by 
cutting the Gordian knot to proclaim the independence giving an example to this 
kingdom, which is presumed from the hastened mention made in the above referred-to 
agreement, of eo glorious an action while the political superior in chief and the 
most excellent provincial deputation have not been pleased to give an answer to the 
notice communicated to them on the subject; and, finally, that having promised by 
the sacred bond of an oath to submit themselves to the plan framed by the chief of 
the nation, they are not at liberty to swerve in the least from its ))rovi8ions, because 
finch conduct would not be approved by the said most excellent chief falling upon 
them, if not, the indignation, at least the disgust of the nation and of the northern 
armies of the three guarantees, because in such case they would be accomplices of 
the break of unity in the sentiments which ought to prevail in the whole empire ; 
against which as it appears said agreement is framed in consequence whereof, they 
have this day agreed by unanimous consent — 

Ist. That the province of Chiapa, that has spontaneously declared her independ- 
ence, does not recognize any other Government whatever but the Mexican Empire 
according to the treaties signed by the most excellent Messrs. Iturbide and O'Douoju, 
and for the present and until notice is received of the deliberations of said first and 
worthy imperial chief, the circulation and fulfillment of said agreement addressed by 
the political superior chief of Guatemala to this Government and intendance and to 
the first constitutional alcalde is stopped, withdrawing all copies scattered in the 
hands of the people. 

2d. That, with copies of said papers and an authenticated testimony of this letter, 
this be brenght to the knowledge of said most excellent Senor Don Agnstin de Itur- 
bide with the above-said object and with a view that he may give his orders with in- 
structions about the principles and method to be adopted in the conduct of the events 
of the day, and its further consequences. 

3d. To answer to the political superior chief inclosing a coi)y of the same act so 
that, having in view also the conference of the most excellent Messrs. Iturbide and 
and O'Donojn, he may be pleased not to disapprove the o[iinion and general view 
which he has expressed upon such an occurrence. 

4th. To send communications inclosing a similar copy of said act and conference to 
the councils ofthejurisdiction of this Government and intendance for their information 
and -^Nith a view to fully preserve the unity of sentiment in the pursuit to uphold our 
general and absolute independence. This proceeding closed the present act, which was 
approved with open doors and in the presence of numerous peoi)le who attended oc- 
cupying the streets, the porches, the yard, windows and even the hall of the library 
above referred to, awaiting the deliberation and resolution to be taken upon the sub- 
ject. 

In testimony whereof the following gentlemen have written their signatures: Juan 
Nepomuceno Batres, Juan Maria Lasaga, Jos^ Diego Lara, Julio Jos6 Flores, Fausteno 
Antonio Zenteno, Juan Miguel Robles, Jos6 Nicolas O'Suna, Esteban Gordillo. 

On behalf of the people as their syndics and representatives: Jos^ Vives, Julian 
Posas, Manuel Ignacio Eznaurriza, Moriano Robles, Fr. Vicente Vives, Fr. Manuel 
lUan. 

On behalf of the community of Santo Domingo: Fr. Galo Esteban Petit, Luis An- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 131 

tonio Garcia, Bonifacio Fernandez, Jose Cuende de Vall<jo, Manuel de Jesus Zepeda, 
Cirilo Macal, Jos^ Maria Eobles, Gregoria Snasnavar, Francisco Jos^ Maya, Pedro 
Guesada, Manuel Eamirez y Paramo, Gregorio Ocampo, Mariano Garcia. 

FUGENIO J0SI5 EUIZ, 

Secretary. 

A true copy of the original document as it is on iile in the respective book under my 
charge. 

In testimony whereof and by order of the gentlemen, I write my signature this 28th 
of September, 1821. 

EUGINIO J0S15 EUIZ, 

Secretary. 

Three seals. 12 reals ($1.50). Seal second. Twelve reals. Years 1811 and 1812. 
Authorized for 1821 and 1822. 

In the royal city of Chiapa, on the 28th of October, 1821, appeared before me in the 
hall of sessions, Don Juan Maria Lasaga, first alcalde of this noble, independent, and 
constitutional council, and the witnesses with whom I dispatch, besides those that 
are herein mentioned, the deputies who form the most excellent board of this prov- 
ince, and said: That having decided in session, held on the 22d instant, to send an 
enlightened, active, and zealous delegate as soon as possible, with the principal object 
of congratulating the sovereign board, the supreme council of regence and its most 
excelleut president and generalissimo of the armies at laud and at sea, and, therefore, 
to deliberate upon the very grave subject of the absolute segregation of this province 
from the captain-generalship of Guatemala, even in case thiis is established there un- 
der the terms of the just system of the Mexican independence ; and having appointed 
for this charge Presbyter Bachelor Don Pedro Jos6 Solorzano, a member of said most 
excellent board, as it appears from the act of the same day, which is as follows : 

In the royal city of Chiapa, on the 22d of October, 1821, met the delegates of the 
most excellent provincial deputation of this province and presided by the most excel- 
lent political superior chief, having discussed about the- person to be elected for the 
very impottant object of congratulating on behalf of this province, the sovereign con- 
gress of the Empire, the supreme council of the regence and the most excellent and 
very worthy president and generalissimo of sea and land, Senor Don Augustin Iturbide, 
and, therefore, to discuss the very importaiit object of the segregation of this province 
from the captain-generalship of Guatemala, even in case the latter should embrace 
the Mexican Empire ; after the most prudent deliberations and careful consideration 
of the circumstances which ought to concur in the person to be designated for said 
purpose, they agreed by a majority of votes to appoint the Presbyter Bachelor Don 
Pedro Jos^ Solorzano, a member of the same most excellent board, appropriating the 
sum of .$2,000 to be paid out of the fundsof the communities for his traveling expenses 
and salary, with the understanding that besides said sum he will be refunded of the 
expenses made to carry out said petition of segregation upon presentation of a justi- 
fied account; and in order to avoid the claims of Guatemala they have likewise re- 
solveil that his departure will take place as soon as possible, asking the very illus- 
trious council for the necesstiry instructions, and signing this document before me the 
nnder written secretary, which I certify. 

JUAN NEPOMUCENO BATEES. 

LINO GAECIA. 

MANUEL IGNACIO ESCAEEA. 

JOSfi VIVES. 

JOSfi ANSELMO DE LAEA. 

PEDEO JOSfi DE SOLOEZANO. 
Francisco Antonio Guillen, 

Delegate Secretary. 

In order that said commissioner may represent all that may be conducive to said 
segregation on behalf of the whole province before the sovereign board, supreme 
council of regency, and before the tribunals that he may deem proper, awaiting, 
the meeting of the delegates representatives of this province who, with those of 
the other provinces, will form the Constituents Cortes, who will take charge of the 
same comudssion, he is especially empowered to do what is rightfully necessary, so 
that in said subject intimate the petition, make representations, send memorials, 
allegations, reply and argue to what it may be alleged to him to the contrary, and 
strengthed by all legal mtsans the petition until it is secured according to the instruc- 
tions sent to him by the city councils of this province and those that may be sent by 
said deputation, for all which they give him ample power to do all that may be 



132 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

rightfully required wit.bout any liinitatiou, so that he may do all that said board 
would do in case they were present and with the power to appoint in his place one or 
more trustful persons. 
In testimony whereof they have assented to and signed with me this paper. 
Witnesses: Don Est6ban Ignacio Cancino, Don Juan Crisostomo Kobles, and Don 
Ambrosio Cancino. 

JUAN MARIA LASAGA. 

JUAN NEPOMUCENO BATRES. 

LINO GARCIA. 

MANUEL IGNACIO ESCARRA. 

JOSJ! VIVES. 

JOSfi ANSELMO DE LARA. 

FRANCISCO ANTONIO GUILLEN. 

GREGORIO OCAMPO. 

JULIAN ROXAS. 
A legal copy made in the same dav. 

JUAN MARIA LASAGA. 

GREGORIO OCAMPO. 

JULIAN ROXAS. 

lu the hall of the city council of Chiapa on the 29th of September, 1821, in session 
called to deliberate upon the interesting subjert of the indejiendence and separation 
of the province of Chiapa from the captain-geueralship of Guatemala, having joined, 
too, the honest inhabitants of the neighborhood who will subscribe this, in order to 
take advice and conduct this matter with the prudence and consideration that it de- 
serves, the formation of the instructions which the presbyter of the bishopric of 
Chiapa and Soconusco sliall carry with him to Mexico was first brought forth as fol- 
lows : 

1. This province ])rofess the Roman Catholic apostolic religion, the only true, with- 
out mixture of any other, to uphu'id which she will pour the last drop of blood. 

2. This province is aud will be ruled, governed, and supported under the flag of 
the great Mexican Empire, aud the latter has no power to cede or to appropriate it 
by legacy or otherwise. 

3. The province of the Chiapas will never be again under the rule of the Government 
of Guatemala, ei:en in case these jn'ovinces or province will establish a kivt) or a republic; 
the commissioner will represent this to the Most Excellent Senor Don Agustin De 
Iturbide, president of the regency. 

4. Chiapas has been under the Guatemala Government about three centuries, and 
in all this period she has not prospered, for which reason she has sworn her independ- 
ence according to the plan of the Most Excellent Senor Don Agustin De Iturbide. 

5. Guatemala has never provided this province with sciences, industry, nor any 
useful arts, and has had the utmost inditference for her. 

6. Guatemala, in former times up to the present date, owing to the very few officers 
she has, has not been able to support herself, aud it has required the help of Mexico. 

7. In case Guatemala will establish a king, in order to sustain the royal family and 
the consequent large number of ohicers, it will be necessary to tax the provinces un- 
der her rule, which will be compelled to revolt to re])el oppression and obtain liberty, 
and Chiapas is not willing to find herself in such a case. 

8. Cliiapas considers necessary' that the Mexican Empire will take proper measures 
to avoid any invasion from Guatemala, since the former province has neither arms 
nor ammunitions of war. 

9. Guatemala has called the Cortes for the montl of March of next year, asking a 
delegate for every ir),000 inhabitants. This province, by virtue of the oath she has 
made, cannot demand those that correspond to her according to the census. Guate- 
mala will resent this, and will take measures taking advantage of the occasion, and 
the commissioner will signify this in order to avoid it in time. 

10. Notwithstanding the fact that the capital of Chiapa is 150 leagues distant from 
the capital of Guatemala and 200 more than that from the capital of Mexico, Chiapas 
desires to be under the Mexican Government that support her, and not under that 
of Guatemala, in which case she would be finally exterminated. 

11. All the commerce of the province of Chiapas is made vvitli the provinces of the 
empire, where she sells her cattle, sugar, aud other productions of the country. 

12. The provinces of the empire make commerce with those of Chiapa and Soco- 
nusco. These furnish the cocoa; Tabasco and the excellent one of Soconusco and the 
vanilla. 

13. The provinces of Puebla, Oaxacaand others are similar in uses and customs to 
that of Chiapa, aud the latter has no similarity to Guatemala. The provinces of the 
empire enrich that of Chiapas by the commerce between themselves. 

14. The province of Chiapas and Soconusco show for their churches the interest 
that Guatemala has always shown in carrying their improvement. In the whole 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 166 

province of Soconusco there is not a single clinrch even of straw, since the best 
churches are made of white leaf and their walls of cane and mud. So much can. be 
said of those of the district of Tabasco. In most of the villages there are no schools 
nor houses of education, which circumstance maintains this province up to the present 
time almost in a complete state of ignorance. 

15. It cannot be denied that the Government of Guatemala has provided with 
schoolmasters some of the villages of the province paid out of the funds of the com- 
munity, but their salaries are so small that the appointments generally are given to 
men who are not capable to fulfill their duties and who cannot give a proper educa- 
tion to children. 

16. Guatemala is composed at present of the following provinces and districts : 
First, Gueyaltenango, Suchitepequez, Totonicapan, Solola, Chiraalenango, Sacate- 
peyquez, Escuinta Grande, Veraipaz, Chiquimula, and Songonate. In all these dis- 
tricts there are four correfjimienios and the other alcaldia. The intendencies are : The 
corregimiento of San Salvador ; the province of Honduras, its capital Comayogua ; 
added to this the Alcaldia Mayor of Tequeigalpa of Heredia. The In tendency of Nicaro- 
gua, its capital Leon; and further the jurisdiction of Costa Rica, its capital Cortogo, 
as far as the village of Buruca, where the Guatemalan kingdom is divided from the 
captain-generalship of Panama. In all that kingdom there are no more fortresses than 
those of the Golfo Dulce of Honduras, San Fernando Omoa, Truxillo, and San Juan 
Nicaragua, in northern part ; so that the kingdom is defenseless and an invasion from 
other countries would not be remote and does not want to share it. 

17. Guatemala, owing to its poorness, is not able to support a war, and it is easy 
that she succumb to the force of an skillful army, and she can be invaded by Acajutla, 
El Realego Nicoya, or Marina. 

18. Finally, Chiapas places her coniidence in thecomuiissioner, of which, according 
to the instructions, he will use of it, cai-rying on the articles which he will deem projjer 
to make representations on behalf of this province. 

Hall of Chiapa, October 29, 1821. 

LUIS INFANTE. 

FERNANDO JPH. DE VALLE. 

By request of the persons who do not know how to write. 

J0SI5 COMACHO, 

Secretary. 

Washington, D. C, Alatj 6, 1882. 
A true translation. 

CAYETASSO ROMERO, 

Seci etary ad in terim. 



[Inclosnre No. 2.] 
FIRST SECRETARYSHIP OF STATE. BUREAU OP STATE. 

The supreme executive power has been informed by your note, dated the 14th ul- 
timo, and by the accompanying documents, of the measures taken in that city to 
examine and ascertain the public will, and to express themselves, consequently, on 
the important point whether it will continue forming part of this nation or whether 
it will enter into that of Guatemala, in case that the capital and the villages which 
are attached to it should be constituted into an independent State. He has also been 
informed that, owing to the decision of this matter not having been carried out, the 
commissioners, appointed for this object by the districts, thought proper to remain as- 
sembled and to reassume the provisional government of the province. His most serene 
highness has seen in this proceeding the precise result of that liberty which the Mexi- 
can Government has thought appertained to all the villages of the Guatemalan terri- 
tory to decide their fate and to follow the resolution they may think most convenient 
to them ; in which case this same Government, which has given, besides this, repeated 
evidence of the liberality of its character, would never reprove that province for ^ 
conduct which seems to have been brought about by its very dispositions, and would 
only regret that the measure which it may adopt should not be well prepared and in 
accordance with the established authorities. Governments must keep order and make 
the happiness of the persons associated thereunder. There is in that province a su- 
perior political chief, a provincial deputation, and other authorities intrusted with 
such sacred objects, to whom, no doubt, the greatest consideration is due, as other- 
wise stability would be wanting and be followt'd by disorder, which is introduced the 
moment the members of a new association think themselves authorized to alter the 
compacts made in its formation and to break the links of etinality and fraternity 



134 UOrNKARY r.LTWEEX MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 

which joined them. This brifi" ohsorvatioii has uo other ohject than the welfare and 
prOBperity of a proNince deserving a singular esteem from lii.s most serene highness, aud 
is by 110 means intended to hasten its decision. He has thought, and thej' have been 
informed of it, that they are free to declare its separation from Mexico if in their 
judgment this stej) .should insure their happiness. In this case no doubt ought to be 
enterrained that he will respect their resolution. But if, on the contrary, aud as 
you are kiud enough to state, that province would wish to continue forming part of 
the Mexican nation for the convenience of their interests, this decision will be very 
agreeable to Mexico and lo its Government, and it will be furthered by drawing closer 
the liidvs of union and equality which they have maintained up to date, and by pro- 
moting until then its greatness and welfare as far as their strength will allow. 

While that jirovince pronounces the decision of its fate, which cannot be delayed, 
Ids most serene highness, to whom their happiness is not iuditi'erent, has desired me 
to recommend aud enhance to you the importance of keeping order and ])eace, to 
which the people are so much entitled. 

May God prolong your life many years. 

Mexico, Julv 9, 18'23. 

ALAMAN. 

lo the Pi'.OVlSlD.VAI. GOVKKNMKNTAL JUNTA OK THE PkOVINCE 01'" CHIAPAS. 

Washington, D. C, ^lay G, 188'2. 
A Iriu' translation. 

CAYETANO ROMERO, 

Secretary ad Interim. 



[IncloBUve No. 3.] 

ministry ok state, justice, and ecclesiastical afeaius. 

Department of Relations, 

Guatemala, October 4, 1824. 
To the vtost excellent Secretary of State and of the Dispatch of Relations of Mexico : 

Your excellency told me in a note dated the 2Gtli of last May that your Government, 
deirons of keeping with this the most perfect harmony, had resolved to propose on 
the subject the following measures: I. To disarm at once all the forces of that prov- 
ince. II. To station on the frontier a body of five or six hundred men of Mexican 
troops ; this Government stationing a similar force, if it wanted, on the limits of its 
territory. III. The executive power of Mexico should appoint a commissioner and 
invite that of this nation to make on its part a like Jippoiutmeiit. 

I stated to your excellency by instructions of this supreme Government in notes 
dated July ',^ aud August 3 last the considerations which ought to be made concern- 
ing tlio.se measures, in order that you would communicate them to your Government. 

I stated, amoug others, that by disarming Chiajias, depriving it of its own forces, 
stationiug right in front of them a body of five or six hundred men of Mexican troops, 
sending there a commissioner from that court, and telling 'them to declare whether 
they want to be united to Mexico or to Guatemala, the people might say that they 
were de})rived of the liberty to which they believe themselves entitled, in order to 
express their will ; that any decision adopted in this manner would be exjmsed to pro- 
test aud subject to claims, the existi^nee of wlii(;h, between two neighboring nations 
which desire, through friendship and reci])r()e;il interests, the mo.st perfect and last- 
ing liarnjony would be regretted by this Government. 

Later events have cnntiriued the fears entertained by this supreme power, proving 
that tliey were not in vain nor its opinion nufounded. The intelligence ihat a com- 
missioner from that supreme Government is residing ;it Ciudad Real; that .'lu order 
had been given by the hit tei' to have Chiapas disarmed and to. station on its frontier a 
force of live orsix hundred Mexicans ; that an intin)atiou had been made by that secre- 
tary of state ;ind of the dispateii of war to the commander of Chiapas to evacuate 
the territory oC that i)rovinc(> with the forces lie may have under him or to dissolve 
them, de])ositiiig the arms at Ciudad Re;il under the care of its munieipality ; and other 
events wliicli are related, and wiiich occurred at tlie samejirovince, have lirought forth, 
even before the decision of the junta of Chiapas concerning its union to Mexico was 
pronounced or known, tlie i)rotests of nullity niadr! against it that have been ad- 
dressed to this supreme (xoverniiKUit, wliich cannot disregard ihem, iisthey are founded 
on considerations and on farts which have to i)e borne in miiul. This serious matter 
was a few days latrr occjoying ihe at tention of tliis (ioverainent, \\ hen they received 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO ANJL) GUATEMALA. 13 :^. 

yesterday the cuiumtniicatioii wherein the juuta of Cindad Keal reports the proceed- 
ings held deciding- its union to that repnl>lic. 

All Ihia has been laid before the Federal assembly, and when this decides what they 
may think just I shall comumnicate to yourexcollency the resolution of both posN^ers. 

In the mean while the reasons herein stated seem worthy of the cousideratiou of 
that supreuie Government. The ris^ht of a proviuee that is goiu"^ to decide its des- 
tiny, stating whetber it wmits to be uuitod to this or that nation, is very plain. 
Neither Mexico uor Guatemala can in that case disarm it or station troops on its fron- 
tier. 

The Government of Guatemala, convinced of this, has wished to abstain itself from 
all interference in the declaratiou of the pt'ople of Chiapas. No forces have been sent 
nor a commissioner ai>pointed; they have, on the contrary, ])rotostod against the 
presence at Cindad Real of the one that your excellency's Government thought fit to 
appoint: they have also protested against the order given by the ministry of war to 
its commandant to evacuate Chiapas and to deposit the arms in the care of the muni- 
cipality of Ciiidad Real, the opinion or votesof which ai e well known ; they have pro- 
tested against the order to station Mexican troops on the frontier of said province. A 
part of your excellency's note of the 4th of August last, which I received by the succeed- 
ing mail, informs me that said forces did not come to the l>oundary of Chiapas. But 
the intelligence that the Mexican Government had decided that they should come to 
the frontier was enough for tlu: people to cease being free, precisely in the act in 
which their liberty was most necessary to them. 

It was published in one of the gazettes of Don Agustin Iturbide's Government that 
a numerous and disci])lined division of hve thousand men, commanded by Count de 
la Cadeua, had cross.^d the large river of Tehauantepec, bound to Guatemala. Neither 
the intelligence was true nor the division reached Guatemala. Bat that indication 
was sufficient, as also the certainty that Don Manxrel Terau, who is now at the head 
of the ministry of war, had gone to Cindad Real as commissioner of said Iturbide, to 
consider that the people had no libert,y to make memorable declaration whether they 
should remain entirely independent or permit their aggregation to Mexico. 

The Government of Guatemala does not compare that of Don Agustin Iturbide's 
with the one which now rules the destinies of that nation, and if my preceding note 
alludes to the commissioner sent by that chief it is only in order to state that if it was 
thought that the people had then enjoyed no freedom for the reasons al>ovo stated it 
would be convenient that they should not again be considered without it. 

Summing up all the considerations stated in this note, the Government of this na- 
tion expects that that of Mexico should agree not to interfere, directly or indirectly, 
in the affairs of Chiapas, nor to change the condition in which the province was at 
the date when its junta made the declaratiou, i>ersuaded that that of this reinablic 
will likewise abstain itself from interfering in the affairs of said people, and that the 
resolution and decision of these powers should be opportunely communicated. 

The executive has instructed mo to state the above to your excellency, and I have 
done so bv his orders, protesting to you the respects of my verv high consideration. 

MARCIAL ZEBADUA. 

Mexico, November 15, 1824. 
To the Minister of State and lielations of the United Frovinces of Central America : 

I communicated to his Excellency the President of the republic your note of the 
4th of last October, and informed of the contents thereof, he orders me to answerthat 
although it is true that the supreme executive power, his immediate predecessor, or- 
dered that the troops that were in the province should be disarmed, that Guate- 
malan and Mexican troops should be stationed in their respective frontiers, and that 
commissioners from one and the other party should go to Ciudad Real, all with the 
object of giving the people of Chiapas full liberty to declare to which of the two 
republics they wanted to be annexed, and that the commissioners of both Govern- 
meuts together, with the local authorities of said capital, should tranquilly and disin- 
terestedly witness that declaration, a very useful and even necess try measure for the 
welfare of both nations, as this Government has already stated to that of Guatemala, 
none of these steps .so politic and impartial had due effect, with the exception of that 
of the coniniissioner by this Government, to which place was appointed Don Jos6 J. 
Buslaujente, who waited at Ciudad Real for the one to be apjtoinfed by Guatemala, 
and if this did not go, it' was not certainly the fault of Mexico uor of Guatemala, 
which perhaps did not think it necessary, as you state in the note to which this is a 
reply. 

It is notorious that not a Mexican soldier was to be stationed at the frontier of 
this i-epublic; it is not less true that the armed forces of Guatemala which gar- 
risoned it before have remained there uji to the present day, and that the Commis- 
sioner Don Jose .Javier Bustamente has in anv way restrained or Vjeen able to restain 



136 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

the will of the people of Chiapas, being only, as it is public and notorious, an im- 
partial and mnt(3 witness of the declaration of said inhabitants, in accordance with 
the repeat(!d orders of my Govern mcnt. 

It is evident, and it cannot escape the wisdom and high penetration of that Govern- 
ment, that the majority of the jicople of Chiapas pronojinced themselves in fiivor of 
Mexico ; that there was not even a Mexican soldier not only in the fr' ntier, but in 
many leagues IVom it, and that there Iseing armed forces from Guatemala in said prov- 
ince what more eoiihl he desired in order to believe that the <leclaration of the peo- 
ple to aggregate themselves to Mexico was free and spontaneous ? The theories and 
political conjectures, however well reasoned and explained they may be. give always 
way before facts and practical evidence. These are plainly in favor of the pro- 
nunciamitnto, and its liberty and other circumstances make it undoubtedly legiti- 
mate. 

The several sovtreign Congresses of the Slexican federation and the supreme Gov- 
ernment thereof, convinced of tliis truth, have recognized and adopted it, ordering 
that said province should bo made a State of this republic. By virtue of this admis- 
sion his excellency the President of the republic has issued the necessary measnree 
within his province and powers, sending now and not before, troops to garrison said 
state and to watch over the conservation of the order and peace of its esteemed in- 
habitants. 

The above is in answer to your said note, and I renew to you the sentiments of tb« 
distinguished consideration with which 

I am your obedient servant, &c., &c. 

WA8HINGTOV, D. C, May 6, ISSi. 
A true translation. 

CAYETANO ROMERO, 

Secretary act interim. 



[Inclosnre No. 4.) 

The representatives of the districts of the province of Chiapa being assembled at the 
ball of the juntas of Ciudad Real, capital of the province, on the 12th of September, 1824, 
fourth of the independence and second of liberty, to wit: On the chair, the priest, Mr. 
Manuel de Jesus Robles, for the district of San Andres; Dr. Carlos Maria Castaiiou for 
that of the capital ; Capt. Joaquin Miguel Gutierrez for that of Tuxtla ; Lieut. Martin 
Esponda for that of Istacomitan ; the priest, Manuel Ignacio Escarra, for that of So- 
conusco ; Sub Ijieur. .Juan CrisostoiKO Robles for that of Palenque ; the priest, Pedro 
Jos^ Solorzano, for that of Huistan ; the jjiiest, Fernando Luis Corona, for that of 
Simojovel; Mr. Manuel Espiuosa for that of Tila ; and absent, the priest, Mr. Fran- 
cisco Guillen, for Tonala, who has been duly excn.sed on account of sickness ; Mr. Ig- 
nacio Ruiz and the priest, Mr. Valentin Soliz, for the districts of Llanos and Ocosingo, 
respectively, the latter on the plea of sickness, and the former for being obliged to 
leave the city to attend to some important family matters ; the meeting having been 
called witli the object of examining the work of the committees of polls and the de- 
cision of the villages,audthe lespective reports having been read, they commenced to 
be qualitied and discussed in the presence of the agent of the supreme Government of 
Mexico, Mr. Jose .Javier Bustamente. In view, tlierefore, of the original returns and 
the necessary vouchers, it was resolved that the province of Chiapas, composed of the 
twelve above-mentioned ilistricts and of one hundred and four vilhiges, represents a 
population of 17'2,%3 inhabitants. The qualitlcation and discussion of said declarations 
having next been made, the following villages were declared as having legally voted 
for their union to the Mexican Republic: Ciudad Real, Chamula, Zinacantan, the 
district of Llanos, with the exception of the villages hereafter mentioned, and the 
districts of San Andres, Huistan, Simojoval, Yajaton, and Petalsingo. The following 
villages were declared to have voted for their union to the republic of Guatemala: 
San Felipe, Zapaluta, Chicomnselo, the districts of Tuxtla, Tonal.-t, Istacomitan, 
Palenque, Soconusco, ami the village of Tila. The declarations of the villages of the 
districts of Ocosingo, Sabanilla, Tiuubala, and Moyos were considered as indifferent, 
not having expressed any opinion at .all. 

The counting having next been made, tlie result was that 1)6,829 inhabitants had 
voted for the the union to the Mexican Republic, and 60,400 for that of Guate- 
mala, which result ])roved thsit there was a nuijority of the population in favor of 
the union to the Mexic.an Republic. Haviiig aft<'rw.')rds compared the two sums. 
including that of the population of the villages considered as inditi'erent, with that 
of the total, they were found to agree. The sui)reme provisional junta, in conformity 
with the sentiments of its circular of the ■J4th of last March, wherein they otiered to 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 137 

respect the vote of the villages, declares that the province of Chiapas has legitimately 
pronounced its decision, and in order that this act should have all the publicity, char- 
acter, and solemnity demanded by law, Tuesday, the 14th instant, was tixed as the 
day for the duo fnltiilment of the solemn declaration to be made in the presence of this 
supreme juuta, of the agent of the Mexican Government, and of the authorities, socie- 
ties, and principal inhabitaots of this capital, who are to be previously invited; and 
this act was considered as ended, being signed by the president and the members there- 
of before me, the undersigned, pro secretary, as attested.^ 

MANUEL DE JESUS ROBLES, President. 

CARLOS CASTANON. 

MARTIN DE ESPONDA. 

MANUEL IGNACION ESCARRA. 

JUAN CRISOSTOMO ROBLES. 

PEDRO J0S15 DE SOLORZANO. 

FERNANDO LUIS CORONA. 

MANUEL ESPINOSA. 
Joaquin Miguei. Gutierrez, Pro Secretary. 

Record of the proceedings had at the solemn declaration of the union of the free Stai^e of 

Chiapas. 

Extraordinary meeting held on the 14th of September, 1824. 

This day having been fixed for the solemn declaration of union, the following per- 
sons assembled at this hall : the representatives, the agent of the supreme Govern- 
ment of the Mexican nation, the illustrious and venerable chapter (vacant bisbopric\ 
together with the governor of the bishopric, the political chief, the honorable muni- 
cipality, the intendant with the employes of the finances, the prelates of the religious 
corporations, and the principal inhabitants of the city. The act was opened with a 
speech made by the president, wherein he stated the great object of the meeting, call- 
ing the attention of the numerous assembly thereof. The secretary read afterwards 
in a loud and clear voice the decree of basis issued by the supreme junta on the 29th 
of July, 1823 ; the record of i)roceedings of the meetings held on the 22d and 24th of 
last March, wherein it was resolved that the villages of this State should openly and 
freely express their will concerning their union to the Mexican nation or to that of 
Guatemala, and the record of the proceedings held on the 12th instant. The president 
made afterwards a speech, stating that the supreme junta was very much pleased to 
have carried out the principal object of its mission, to have respected public opinion 
in the majority of its votes, according to the basis of population, congratulating itself, 
and requesting the authorities and corporations to maintain order and the most per- 
fect understanding. A speech was likewise made by the agent of the supreme Gov- 
ernment of the Mexican nation, oftering the free State of Chiapas, in the name of the 
supreme Government he represents, all their protection in order to lead said State to 
its greatest rank and happiness. Similar speeches were made by the political chief 
on behalf of the honorable municipality; the schoolmaster, in the name of the illus- 
trious and venerable chapter (vacant bishopric) ; the intendant, in the name of the 
employ68 of his department, and the provincial of Saint Dominick, in the name of the 
prelates of this city and other religions corporations. These speeches were answered 
in appropriate terms by the president, who manifested the satisfaction entertained 
by the supreme junta for the good sentiments expressed therein. After this the 
assembly, the supreme juuta, and the agent went, accompanied by a good orchestra, 
and nninerous people and the ringing of bells, to the holy cathedral, where a solemn 
Te l)eum was chanted ; after which they returned to the hall to close the ])roceeding8. 
The president expressed the satisfaction of the junta for the good order and general 
joy noticed in the conciirrents and spectatoi-s proper of a free and virtuous people, 
who had done their best in decorating the streets, and especially in beautifying with 
two rows of artificial trees the space between the hall and the holy church. The fol- 
lowing inscription in golden characters could be seen : " Long live religion." "Long 
live union." "Long live just liberty and our federation." Such was the solemnity 
which was at that time taking place, and which was followed in the afternoon by 
public rejoicings, and in the evening by music at the city hall and a general illumi- 
nation. 

In order that this should be duly accredited the following record is made, with the 
testimony of which and of that of the preceding meeting the supreme junta decided 
to give an account thereof to the supreme executive power of the Mexican Republic, 
accompanying the correspondent manifestation, and that a similar notice be given to 
that of the republic of Guatemala, for its information; also that circulars be sent to 
the political chief, to the governor of the bishopric, to thn intendant of finances, and 



138 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

to the commanding ij,eneral, iu order that thoy should without loss of time have it 
published aud duly circulated, accrediting opportunely the fultillment thereof. 

These proceedings having been closed, they were signed before me, the pro-secretary, 
as attested. 

MANUEL DE JESUS ROBLES, 

President. 
CARLOS CASTANON. 
JUAN CRISOSTOMO ROBLES. 
MANUEL lUNACIO ESCARRA. 
PEDRO JOSfi DE SOLORZANO. 
FERNANDO LUIS CORONA. 
MANUEL ESPINOSA. 
Maktin 1)K Esponda, 

ProSeiretary. 

Washington, D. C, May <n, 1882. 
A true translation. 

CAYETANO ROMERO, 

Secretary ad intenm. 



[Lnclosure No. 5.] 

Hall of the Town of Tapachula, 

Soconusco, May 3, 1324. 

The illustrious couacil of the capital have received the circular of the supreme 
provisioual board of this province, royal city of Chiapas, dated on the 24th of March 
last, sent by the political chief of the same Don Gregorio, Luasnabor, with his commu- 
nication of the Ist of April last, I'elating to this district, expressing freely its decision 
to belong to the federal Government either of Mexico or Guatemala. Said circular 
was also sent to the city councils of Tuxtla, Chico, and Escuiutla, iu order that they 
may appoint the representatives to xyhom said circular refers. The small populations 
dependent from this council having been called to this capital, it was published by 
decree the fixed day for the inauguration of the respective board. All which took 
place, aud the i-ex)resentatives of the city councils met in this hall, together with other 
citizt!ns who accompanied, them including the jiarish priest, Br. Don Eugeuio C6rdoba, 
aud the commandant. Lieutenant' Don Manuel C6rdolta. The circular of the supreme 
board was read loud aud clearly, aud its contents explained as stating that tlif> future 
fate of the district depended from the decision upon so delicate a subject, ia order 
that would reflect about the decision to be given by i)lurality of votes, which was 
that they desired to be aggregated to the federal Government of the Moxicau nation. 

After this formality the board adjouiued, signing this act before me, the under- 
writer secretary, those who knew how to write. 
Pedro Chacon, Jacinto L6pkz, 

eugenio c6ud0ba, fuancisco soliz, 

Manuel C6rdoba, Mokiano Antonio, 

BOKTOLOMl^ DE ApARICIO, FeLIPK iTUKlilDE, 

NOKBEKTO CONISALES, ISIDORO CODENA, 

CiRioco Akriola, Fiburcio Castellanos, 

Makcelo Nicolas y Vallejo, Francisco Antequeko, 

Leonardo Fuentes, Sevkro Couteno. 

Felipe Coijdenas, Secretary. 
A true copy of the original document. 
I certify that these are true, corrected, and amended co|iies. 

PEDRO CHACON. 
Felipe Cordenas, Seoeiary. 

Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. 
A true translation. 

(;AYETAN0 ROMERO, 

Secretary ad interim. 



[lnclosure No. 6.] 
UKNKRAL MINISTRY. DEPAIiTMENT Ol' STATE. 

The follo\\'ing communication has be»ni addressed by the national constituent as- 
sembly to the supreme executive power, on the 2'lth instant : 

The national constituent assembly, iu its ses.sion of the 2lst instant, have thought 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AXD GUATEMALA. 139 

proper to give the followiug report from the Hjiecial conimi.ssiou a])poiiited to give iu- 
forniation in regard to the subject of the report: 

Sir: The invitations addressed to the authorities of Chiapas by some of the gener- 
als of the liberator army of Mexico, and the celebrated decree of the provisional 
government of these provinces of the 29th of March last, have caused the formation 
of general board of the authorities, corporations, and principal neighbors, which seated 
in Ciudad keal on 8th of April last. lu order to )ireserve the iuiUvisibility of the 
province, and with a view to legally ascertain whether her compact of nnion to the 
Mexican State was broken, and whether the province ought to continue incorporated 
to that State, or to be nnited again to these provinces of Guatemala, a provisional 
congress was called, which held its tirst sessions on the 4th, 8th, and 9th of June last, 
and composed often delegates, representatives of so many districts. Those of Istaco- 
initan and Tapachula did not attend. Tlie question above uientinued was proposed 
and dismissed, and resnt was five votes for declaration of the rupture of the compact 
with Mexico, and the other five for the contrary. Iji consequence of this a new reso- 
lution, carried by eight votes, gave to the board the character of jtrovisional execu- 
tive board in charge of the government of the province until it is decided whether she 
goes back to her former union with Guatemala or continues with that of Mexico. 

This is the ]mrport of the acts and communications to which it is necessary to reply 
as soon as possible, having in view the harmony and fraternity due to that province, 
and the consideration which her provisional government deserves. It would be very 
desirable that our brother, the inhabitants of Chiapas, having in view the neces.sity, 
convenience, and reciprocal advantages of the union of that province with these ones, 
and also the wonderful results which a similar union produced in English America, 
they would decide at once to renew the ties of fraternity and close friendship with us; 
but this must be the result of the deliberation and conviction of the interested par- 
ties; meanwhile tlte united pro rinces ought to respect the free will of those provinces 
that have not conclude:! as yet to join us in this compact. Under such principles it 
seems that our Goverumeut oughts to reply iu the name of the new Central State of 
America to the supreme board of Chiapas that: The assembly and the supreme ex- 
ecutive Power of said State are informed of the resolutions of said board; that they 
commend the prudence, circumspection, and careful consideration that said board have 
given to the fulfillment of their commission ; that if at last Chiapas would be willing 
to join these United Provinces, she will be receiv'ed with the greatest pleasure, and 
the provinces will consider their happiness as complete: and that if said province of 
Chiapas would consider more suitable to her interests to continue her separation, this 
will not be an obstacle to the mutual friendship^ fraternity, aitd even the services of 
the Gtiatemalan State. 

The supreme executive power, entirely agreeing with constituent national assembly, 
resolved to communicate this to your excellency, in order that the province of Chi- 
apas be persuaded that her incorporation to the united provinces of Central America 
would be coi'dially welcome, and that in case she decides to continue her separation 
they will preserve the most perfect friendship with a sister province that shared with 
them the vexations of the Spanish Government. 

All which I commuaicate to your excellency for your information. 

God preserve your excellency many years. 

Palace of Guatemala, oOth July, 1823. 

JOSE DE VELASCO. 

Most Excellknt Supkeme Government Boakd or the Provixoe of Chiapas. 

Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882, 
A true translatiou. 

CAYETANO EOMEKO, 

Svcrciary ad ivterim. 



[Inclosure No. 7. Translatiou.] 

Legation of Guatemala, 

Mexico, August 21, 1874. 

Sir : As was agreed in our last conference, I do myself the honor to send your ex- 
cellency Uhe inclosed memorandum, hoping you will bo pleased to appoint a day arid 
hour when I may present myself at your office to continue the discussion of the project 
of bases for a preliminary convention upon the boundaries between Guatemala and 
Mexico. 

This occasion aliords me the pleasure of renewing to your excellency the assurances 
of my distinguished consideration. 

R. I'RIARTE. 

To His Ex<',ellency Mi. Jose Maiua LAFKACa'A, 

Miimler of Foreign Affaim of the Mexican Republit;. 



140 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Memorandum presented bi/ the undersigned, euvoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
of Guattinala, to his ixcilleyicy Mr. Jose Miiria LaJ'ratjua, minister of foreign affairs of 
the Mexican Hepuhlic. 

Legation of Guatemala, Mexico, August 21, 1874. 

After examining with tlie greatest care all the documents found in the archives of 
the legation in my charge concerning the various (luestious pending between Gua- 
temala and Mexico, I now fulfill the duty of submitting to the enlightened considera- 
tion of your excellency the present niemoranduin as a basis for the conferences begnn 
on the 22d of last July. 

I would waive all mention of the obstacles hitherto encountered in bringing to a 
happy conclusion the treaties proposed between the two republics, and especially that 
concerning territorial limits, if it were not for the fact that in official documente 
Guatemala has been charged with unwillingness to conclude such treaties. This ap- 
pears from the memoir presented by your excellency to the Congress of the Union last 
year, and more explicitly from tl]e documents concerning measui'es proposed for the 
development of the agricultuml wealth of Soconusco, presented by the finance de- 
partment to the Congress of 1871. In this latter document it is stated tliat Mexico 
has always been ready to enter into friendly and equitable treaties with Guatemala, 
but that the latter power has refused to sign them under the belief, or, at least the 
hope, of some time recovering the State ot Chiapas. This is inexact. A rapid glance 
at the protocols of the conferences held at different periods between the commissioners 
of the two countries will demonstrate that Guatemala has not only been ever ready to 
negotiate treaties with Mexico, but that she has carried her condescension as far as is 
possible for a nation desirous of the closest harmony with her neighbors, without 
prejudice to her own dignity. 

With respect to the question of limits, for example, Guatemala proposed in 1832 the 
arbitration of a friendly nation, which was declined by Mexico. Some years later, 
in 1854, Guatemala went to the extreme of renouncing her indisputable rights to 
Chiapas and Soconusco, without demanding any indemniticatiou, and, if the negotia- 
tion was not carried out it was because Mexico declined to recognize and pay the 
debt of those States to the ancient " kingdom of Guatemala." 

Nearly the same thing took place respecting the treaties of commerce and extradi- 
tion of criminals, two of which were successively negotiated in 1831 and 1850, with- 
out having bet-n ratified by the Mexican Government. 

Guatemala lias just given the latest proof of her sincere desire to tern)inate a ques- 
tion which has been pending for half a century between the two countries by sending 
the undersigned to this city. If on the part of Mexico, then, there exists the same 
desire as your excellency has been pleased to ijitimate to me, nothing will be easier 
than to (haw closer, by means of equitable conventions, the ties of friendship and 
fraternity which ought always to bind together two neighboring republics which have 
the same origin and identical interests. 

As the first to be done is to agree upon a preliminary convention to fix the basee 
according to which should be traced the dividing line from the coasts of the Pacific 
to those of the Northern Sea, the undersigned sees no objection, respecting the ques- 
tion o/ Chiapas, to take as a starting point the project discussed in Guatemala be- 
tween Messrs. Pavon and Pereda in 1854; that is to say, thit Guatemala will rec- 
ognize the incorporation of that State into the Mexican territory on condition that 
Mexico will proceed to settle the debt which that province had contracted with what 
was formerly the " captaincy- general of Guatemala." 

The case is not the same respecting Soconusco. I waive for the present the narra- 
tion of the acts by virtue of which that former district of Guatemala now forms a 
part of the United States of Mexico. Force does not constitute a title, and, if with 
respect to Chiapas, no one can doubt the justice with which Guatemala might demand 
its restitution, in regard to Soconusco it is abundantly evident that the violation of 
the neutrality in which it had been agreed to maintain that province can never be for 
Mexico a title of domain, but rather strengthens, in the eyes of international law, 
the titles which Guatemala has ever had for considering it an integral part of her ter- 
ritory. But, as I have already said, it is not my intention to record the history of 
those unjustifiable acts, and I will only call your excellency's attention to the difiS- 
culties presented by the tracing of any dividing line segregating Soconusco from the 
territory of Guatemala. 

The clearer the demarkation of frontiers between adjacent countries the fewer dis- 
putes will there be between frontier authorities, and all questions originating in the 
lack of precision of the dividing lines will be completely obviated. For this reasoB 
it has latterly become the custom among civilized nations to adopt as such bounda- 
ries (legif'es of longitude or latitude. Since this is not possible in the present case 
of the limits between Guatemala and Mexico, the line should be drawn as straight as 
possible, in view of the broken character of the region through which it must pass. 
The department of Soconusco, on the southern coast, forms an angle entering the t«ir- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 141 

ritory of Guatemala, of which the base is the river Ciutalapa, i^roceediug from the 
bay of Zacapulco as far as the towns of Motocinta and Mazapau, and the vertex be- 
ing formed by the mouth of the river Tilapa, iu the bay of Oc68, Consequently the 
base for the demarkatiou of the line from the Pacific Ocean should be the bay of Zac- 
apulco, tracing thence a straight line to the river Dolores, the recognized limit of the 
State of Chiapas. Guatemala could not accept the imperfection of a line starting 
from the bay of Oc6s, going thence north to Tajomulco, then receding eastward along 
the mountain chain of Tajomulco, and finally descending the river Blanco to Maz- 
apan. 

From the river Dolores to the Northern Sea the undersigned proposes for basis for 
the tracing of a line the actual possession, with the understanding that a scientific 
commission should be appointed by agreement of both governments, in order to make 
the necessary surveys, and mark the definitive limits between Guatemala and Mexico 
in accordance with the bases above suggested. 

Eespeciing treaties of friendship, commerce, and extradition, and a postal conven- 
tion, the undersigned abstains from speakiug of them in the present mejuorandum, 
80 as to proceed with order, making due separation between the subjects which have 
been intrusted to him. 

R. UKIARTE. 

Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. 
A true translation . 

CAYETANO EOMERO, 

Secretary ad inierim. 



[Inolosure No. 8.] 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Mexico, October 'J, 1875. 

Sir : By direction of the President of the republic I now proceed to examine the 
aote of your excellency, dated August 21, 1874, and the accompauyiug memorandum, 
on the contents of which I have made to your excellency some observations in private 
conferences. * * * 

Entering upon the examination of the serious matter in question, I must immedi- 
ately remind you that on October 20, 1873, I had the honor to address to Mr. Manuel 
Garcia Granados, then representative of Guatemala, the formal declaration that the 
Government of Mexico does not admit any discussion upon the legitimacy of the pos- 
session of Chiapas and Soconusco by the United States of Mexico. As that note was 
not answered, and since your excellency afterward arrived here in the high capacity 
of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, the Government of Mexico nat- 
arally believed that Guatemala desisted from the question formerly raised by her as 
to the incorporation of Chiapas and Soconusco, and that the mission of your excel- 
lency had for object the much desired settlement of boundaries. But the note and 
memorandum of your excellency reopen this discussion, and conclude by proposing to 
Mexico the loss of almost the whole of Soconusco, as well as a part of Chiapas and 
the payment of the debt for which that state is alleged to be responsible. 

It would sufiice for the Government of Mexico to refer to the formal declaration 
contained in the note of October 20, 1873 ; but, with the only object of preventing 
that decision from being deemed capricious or arbitrary, I proceed to state to your 
excellency the reasons which legalize the possession of Chiapas and Soconusco, with- 
out thereby modifying the sentiments expressed in 1873. The present exposition will 
set forth the sum of the rights which Mexico considers beyond question, and which 
she is resolved to sustain in the just defense of those important parts of the national 
territory, worthy for a thousand reasons of the esteem of our citizens and of the effi- 
cacious protection of the Government. * * * 

It is consequently proved that there were no such abuses (as have been alleged by 
Gautemala) in the incorporation of Chiapas and Soconusco ; but even admitting, 
without conceding, that there was any irregularity, what does it avail in view of the 
solemn ratification based upon the acquiescence of the people of Chiapas and So- 
conusco? During fifty-one years the former, and during thirty-three years the lat- 
ter,* have not made a single |>rotest, have not expressed a single complaint, or maniv 
fested any dissatisfaction on account of their union with Mexico. They have suffered, 
like other Mexicans, the evils of civil war and of foreign invasions ; they have enjoyed 
the benefits of liberty and felt the tyranny of dictatorship, and, with their talents 
in council and theii blood in battles, have contributed to the defense of national in- 
terests. 

* This was written in 1875. Now, in 1881, the possession by Mexico has lasted fifty- 
seven years iu one case and thirty-nine years in the other. 



142 * BOUNDARY BET'.vr.EN MKXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

As a Stiitc of the Federal Republic, as a Department of the Central Republic, Chi- 
apas has reinaiued. during the lonf>- period of our checkered political life, the same 
province which spontaneously united itself to Mexico on the Ml of September, 1821. 
When, in 1847, the Federal Government was reduced to a few cities, without an army 
and obliged to yield to the terrible law of war, why did Chiapas not separate from a 
nation so prostrated by misfortune? When, in 1865, the Federal Government was 
carried, by public misfortune, to Paso del Norte, why did not Chiajias, situated at 
the other extremity of the country, at a distance of frIOO leagues, separate from a na- 
tion almost completely subjugated by a foreign power f These and other periods 
afforded extreme facilities for Chiapas, if, in her territory, there had existed any 
sentiment hostile to Mexico, to manifest it, or ro indicate any desire to abandon the 
mother country, which she freely adopted as her own, and to whose fortunes, pros- 
perous or adverse, she has remained united with the most perfect libertv. If the 
State of Chiapas were situated in the center of the republic, it might be said, carry- 
ing suspicion beyond the limits of probability, that her hands were tied by her very 
position, since any movement on her part might be suppressed in a single day. But, 
being situated at the extremity of the country, and separated from the center by 
300 leagues of really difficult roads, her unshaken tidelity is not the effect of fear, but 
the worthy fruit of a sentiment as noble as it is spontaneous. 

What reasons, said I in the note dated October 20, 1873, can be alleged in presence 
of so firm a will? What title can avail more than so constant a fidelity? What 
right more solid than that founded upon such a loyal and zealous patriotism ? In 
fact a simple doubt would be an oft'ense the more cruel when more undeserved, and 
this is one reason why the Government of Mexico cannot admit any discussion upon 
the possession of Chiapas and Soconusco.* 

Before entering upon the examination of the prr:iect of limits I ought to reply to a 
charge unjustly made against the Republic of Mexico, attributing to its reluctance 
the delays experienced in this important business. From 1825 until the present day 
Mexico has constantly proposed the immediate tracing of the limits. This appears 
from the notes of Mr. Alaman and the protocols of Messrs. Manuel Diez de Bouilla 
and Juan Nepoinuceno de Pereda, envoys of Mexico in that republic. Guatemala, on 
the contrary, has ever avoided the tracing of limits, desiring the maintenance of the 
statu quo, and thus postponing indefinitely the solution of so important an affair. 
# # # » * * * 

These official documents fully prove who has been at fault in this delay. Mexico 
has constantly sought for the tracing of the limits, which she has considered as the 
only means of closing the door against claims which, though perchance of slight im- 
portance at the outset, are magnified by the lapse of time into affairs of great mo- 
ment. Guatemala, on the contrary, has constantly refused the tracing of limits, and 
has always labored for the preservation of the statu quo, thus leaving open a wide 
door for quarrels between private individuals, which subsequently become conflicts 
between governments. Would the scandals of Bejucal, and so many others, which 
have given occasion to complaints, and even now demand the attention of the two 
countries, have taken place if the dividing line had been clearly fixed? But all the 
efforts of Mexico have been sterile in presence of the zeal with which Guatemala has 
sustained her fancied right to Chiapas and Soconusco. Hoping some day to recover 
these regions, or to obtain a pecuniary compensation for them, she has refused to put 
an end to an uncertainty harmful to both nations, and proposed the negotiation of 
treaties of a different character, which can be of no utility as long as the material 
possession, subject by law to the authority of each government, remains undefined. 
It is true, as your excellency says, that in 18.54 Guatemala agreed to the incorporation 
of Chiapas aiul Soconusco, but she did not consent to the actual tracing of the limits, 
insisting, as before, upon the maintenance of the statu quo, as may be seen in Article 
I of the memorandum by Mr. Pavon : "The limits between the two republics shall 
continue to be xvhat they now are." This phrase clearly expresses the invariable idea 

* There are several reasons why Mexico could not, even if she would, enter into any 
discussion upon the legitimacy of her loug-continned possession of Chiapas and Soco- 
nusco. The most apparent is that the constitntion of the Mexican Republic enumer- 
ates Chiapas (including Soconusco) among the States of the Union. Consequently 
there is a constitutional impediment, (juite unsurmountable, for the Government of 
Mexico to discuss before an arbitration or otherwise the untimely qnestion now raised 
by Guatemala. She urges that the said Government, to gratify some long-cherished 
fancies of Guatemalan politicians, should submit to trample upon the national consti- 
tution (and forget, its dignity) by discussing, without any authority to do so, a point 
settled alike by that instrument and by time, the great legitimator of all possessions 
in the world, even when their title is less clear than that of Mexico to her present 
State of Chiapas. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 143 

of Guatemala, namely, not to truce her limits, and thus leave subsisting all the causes 
of difficulties, and aUthe elements of future conflicts, between tUe two nations. More- 
over, the deference of Guatemala in 1854 had for its basis the proposed payment of a 
debt which Mexico can not recognize, and a claim upon unoccupied lands which can 
not even be discussed, since it has no foundation whatever. It is, in fact, difficult to 
discover the reasons which Guatemala has had for refusing the settlement of her limits, 
for it is not possible even to imagine that this refusal involves the idea of maintaining 
the rights hitherto alleged and the hopes hitherto cherished. It is, therefore, abso- 
lutely iud'spensable to jjut; an end to a controversy which has caused such evils to both 
countries and threaten others still more serious for the future welfare of two republics 
needing to live in the most i^erfect harmony. 

Summing up all the argument of the present note, the following points have been 
proved : 

1. Chiapas was a proviuce on terms of equality with the others which formed the 
captaincy -general of Guatemala. 

2. Chiapas, on the 3d of September, 1821, spontaneously separated from Guatemala 
and united herself to Mexico. 

3. Chiapas, on the 12th of September, 1824, again united herself to the United States 
of Mexico, by the free vote of the majority of her inhabitants. 

4. Soconusco, in 1821, was a partido of the intendency of Chiapas, and as such 
united herself to the Mexican Empire. 

5. Soconusco, in 1824, was legitimately represented in the supreme juntaof Chiapas, 
and freely voted for annexation to Mexico on the 3d of May. 

6. The act signed at Tapachula, on the 24th of July, 1824, was a revolutionary doc- 
ument, and was illegal from every point of view. 

7. Central America recognized the supreme junta of Chiapas, and offered to respect 
its determination. 

8. The decree of August 18, 1824, by which the federal congress declared that Soco- 
nusco, by virtue of her proniinciamento, had united with Central America, was a usur- 
pation of the rights of Mexico. 

9. The notes exchanged between the ministers Alaman andMayorga did not consti- 
tute a legal agreement. 

10. The decree of October 31, 1825, by modifying the essence of the propositions of 
the Mexic.an minister, left them without effect. 

11. The neutrality in which Soconusco remained de facto was many times violated 
by Guatemala. 

12. No act of Mexican authorities recognizing such neutrality could be valid, since 
any treaty required the approl)ation of Congress. 

13. Mexico was under no obligation to respect such neutrality. Consequently, when 
she occupied Soconusco in 1842, she infringed no international compact, and only made 
use of the right given her by the vote of May 3d, and the declaration of September 
12, 1824, 

14. Soconusco, in 1842, was free to unite herself again to Mexico ; for, even suppos- 
ing legitimate the act of July, 1824, the district was thereby united to Central America, 
not to Guatemala; therefore, when that federation was dissolved, Guatemala had no 
rights of any kind. 

15. Tlie militarj' pressure, the intrigues, and other abuses which Guatemala has im- 
puted to Mexico are not proved, while, on the contrary, it is proved that in Septem- 
ber, 1824, there were no Mexican troops in Chiapas, and that those commanded by 
Colonel Aguayo, in 1842, were invited thither by the inhabitants of Soconusco. 

16. Any sapposable irregidarity in the •incorporation of Chiapas and of Soconusco has been 
enlireli) ralidatcd hy the covstantunion of those 7-ef/iovs during fifty-one years in the first case, 
and daring thirty-three years in the second case* in tvhich la])se of time they have not pre- 
sented a single complaint nor indicated any repugnance to continue attached to the Mexican 
Republic. 

17. Respecting the public lands, the claim of Guatemala is entirely inadmissible, 
since she has no right whatever upon the territory of Chiapas. 

18. The debt of Chiapas is included in that of Mexico, which is consequently not 
responsible for it to Guatemala, from whom she might, on the contrary, more properly 
demand a certain amount, as the difference between that debt and the general one of 
Central America. 

19. The delays of so many years in the settlement of this question are due to Gua- 
temala, who has always opposed the tracing of limits, which has continually been 
urged by the Government of Mexico. 

The facts being thus cleared up, and the right of Mexico to Chiapas and Soconusco 
being solidly established, I proceed to treat of the question concerning the adjust- 

* Now, in 1881, these periods are, respectively, fifty-seven and thirty-nine years. 



144 ' BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

ment of limits between the frontier States of both republics, in order to terminate, in 
a practical manner, this prolonged subject of controversy. 

I renew to your excellency my very distinguished consideration. 

J. M. LAFRAGUA. 
To his Excellency Mr. Ramon Uuiarte, 

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the liepublic of Guatemala.* 



Draft of a boundary treaty heticeen Mexico and Guatemala. 

Ist. The starting point to trace the boundary line between the two republics will 
b© the spot where the ranch of La Encontada used to be, and if there is no sign to 
point out that place, six kilometers from the bar of Ocos will be measured towards 
the southeast, and the end of that measure will be the beginning of the following trace : 

2d. From said end a right line will be traced towards the north as far as its inter- 
section with Tilapa River, following as boundaiy the course of said river as far as the 
spot called Caballo Blanco. 

3d. From said spot another right line will be traced as far as its intersection with 
Petecalapa River on the national road going from Tuxtla Chico, town of Mexico, to 
Malacatan, town of Guatemala. 

4tli. From the mentioned pass of said river on the road from Tuxtia to Malacatan, 
the boundary line will follow the course of the river as far as its head. In case of 
donbt as to the head of the Petacalapa River, a right line will be traced, of fifty kilo- 
meters, to the northeast of the intersection of the national road from Tuxtla Chico, 
to Malacatan with Petacalapa River. 

5th. From the end of said trace of fifty kilometers a right line will be drawn to a 
point situated in the middle of the distance between the summit of the volcano of 
Tajomulco to that of the volcano of Soconusco or I'acona. 

Cth. From said middle point between the two volcanoes another right trace will be 
made to the summit of the volcano Tocoiiil, aud from there another right trace as far 
as the intersection of the Nenton River on the way from the village of the same 
name of the department of Huehuetenaugo in Guatemala to that of Zapatula in the 
department of Comitan of the Mexican territory. 

7th. From the intersection of the Neuton River, in the above-mentioned spot, an- 
other right line will be traced to a point fifteen kilometers distant towards the east 
of the summit of the Isbul Hill. 

8th. The Governments of Mexico and Guatemala shall appoint, reapectivelj , a scien- 
tific commissioQ of two or more persons, who, separately and under the conditions 
which their respective Governments may deem neceHsary to i>rotect their interests, 
will survey the boundaries of both n^piiblics in the States of Tabasuo, Ytu-atan, and 
Campeche, making the nece.s.sary maps and gathering information and data, for which 
purpose the Government of Mexico will furnish the commission of Guatemala and 
the Government of Guatemala will furnish tlie Mexican commission with such infor- 
mation aud (loiMimi'iiis as each of tli^in may possess in relation to the ]>ouudarie8 in 
said States; all this in order to facilitate as far as possible the definite demarcation of 
the boundaries between the two rei)ublics. 

9th. Said commissions will terminate their work within a year from the day in 
which they arrive to the starting point, which will be the one situated 15 kilometers 
from the summit of the Isbul River toward the east. Each Government will inform 
the other of the day in which their respective commissions will begin their work, which 
will begin within three months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of 
this treaty. 

10th. In case the boundary line passes through lands belonging to private persons, 
each fraction will be subjected to the laws of the nation to which it belongs, accord- 
ing to it« geographical position. 

11th. Of the grants of lands embraced in the 1)oundary line will be recognized as 
lawful only those issued before the 1st of July, 1872. The grants issued after that 
date will be lawful only in that portion of land belonging to the nation that made 
the grant, the grant of the other portion being annulled. 

Mexico, 9th October, 1875. 

J. M. LAFRAGUA. 

Washington, D. C, May 6, 1882. 
A tme translation. 

CAYETANO ROMERO, 

Secretary ad interim. 



'This dispatch has not been answered by Guatemala. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 145 

(Inclosure No. 9.] 

Memorandum or ohservations made in regard to the draft of a boundary treati/ submitted by 
Stiior Fereda, minister plenipotentiary of Mexico, to the plenipotentiary of Guatemala. 

The good will existing between the contracting parties, and the mutual desire that 
prompts them to put a happy end to the negotiation now pending, is a guarantee that 
the explanations given by one of the parties will be satisfactory to the other. With 
this belief it is necessary to give certain explanations that were omitted before in 
the course of the negotiations. 

1st. Chiapas and Socimusco were an integrant part of the kingdom of Guatemala, 
and their separation and annexation to Mexico after the iudependeace are question- 
able facts up to the present date, and not agreed to by this party, as there are re- 
monstrances and other documents exchanged between the two Governments in regard 
to this subject. 

2d. In such status it would be strange that without examining these questions 
that have been pending for many years (the question in regard to Chiapas being dif- 
ferent from that w^hich concerns Soconusco), a so-called boundary treaty were made, 
finally providing for the abandonment by Guatemala of the rights she has considered 
to have to the integrity of her territory, without even expressing the reasons for this 
cession, and without receiving such compensations as a treaty of this kind ought to 
provide. 

3d. Snch treaty, even in case the plenipotentiary of Guatemala would agree to it, 
would undoubtedly be rejected by his Government and by the public opinion ; that 
is, it would be an impossibility, and would not contribute in the least to strengthen 
the bonds of friendship between the two countries. 

4th. It must be considered that Guatemala, in treating this question with Mexico, 
has to consider the representation of the kingdom of Guatemala and to be responsible 
for the results under any circumstances, replying, if is necessary, to any interpellation 
from the other Central American States, which do not agree with the principles 
adopted in Mexico and supported by Guatemala, if desirable to avoid aiiy cause of 
well-founded recrimination. 

5th. Besides this, such step would be an outrage to the hopes and rights of the per- 
sons in Chiapas and Soconusco who have remained faithful to Guatemala; it would 
be as to dismiss them without rewarding their fidelity. Such abandonment is not 
made hy Governments from which they would not receive any credit. We have here 
documents which throw light on this subject, and it must not be supposed that we 
neglected its careful and due consideration. 

6th. Considering all these difficulties, and with a view to obviate them, / have re- 
peatedly proposed to the plenipotentiary of Mexico to give up the idea expressed by him 
of making especiallj' the so-called boundary treaty, since the rights of Guatemala to 
Chiapas and Soconusco have not been considered, an acknowledgment of the statu 
quo as to the boundaries would not be out of question, which, sanctioned by time, 
supported by mercantile arrangements which will make disappear any opposition 
from the inhabitants, and Mexico giving the sum claimed to discharge these prov- 
inces of their share in the old debt, which will be recognized by Guatemala, will pro- 
duce substantially the same result, putting at once an end to the old difficulties, 
which wouldbe settled in that way. 

7th. Guatemala in this goes farther than could be expected, since, in fact, the old 
question of Chiapas and Soconusco is settled and the welfare of these provinces se- 
cured, establishing a mercantile arrangement which will remove all cause of com- 
plaint and promote their wealth without detriment to Mexico. In regard to the four 
or five hundred thousand dollars claimed, it must be had in view that the interested 
parties are persons or public establishments of Guatemala, who, sooner or later, will 
have to come in for the whole or a part, since their right is indisputable, to any of the 
fractions which have the responsibility in common. 

If the principal subject was to be considered and the respective iudemuization 
claimed, Guatemala then could ask a larger sum by public lands and other things of 
public property, to consent in the segregation of those departments. Though this 
consideration must be had in view, existing among us, or at least on the part of Gua- 
temala considerarions of higher importance, what is aimed at is to remove difficulties, 
instead of increasing them. 

8th. The sum claimed is limited to what it belongs proportionately to Chiapas, just as 
the others, creditors in general, have been dealt with, and nothing can be more equit- 
able. When the kingdom of Guatemala belonged to Spain its treasury recognized the 
mortgage debt upon the kingdom, as in the other captain-generalships, which debt 
was originated by deposits of money, annuities, chaplaincy, pensions, &c. Guatemala, 
in declaring her independence in 1821, solemnly recognized this debt, afterward re- 
iterated the recognition, and paid, now and then, some sums. How could it be ex- 

H. Ex. 154 10 



146 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

pected that in making the abandonment of the rights she considers to have on 
Chiapas, the (inestion of the debt would not arise to be settled in order to i^rotect her 
interests ? Therefore, in the settlement of all these things, it is bnt natural that 
this qnestiou will not l>e omitted. 

9th. As to the question of rights, it has been already said that Mexico can do in 
this subject what she deems proper without otfense to the treaties with other nations, 
as Guatemala has done without receiving any remonstrance. 

From another stand-point it must be bad in view that, during the time of the Span- 
ish Goveruinent, the tiixes levied in Mexico were greater than in Guatemala, on ac- 
count of greater richness of that kingdom, and for this reason Chiapas, that was 
accustomed to the low taxes of Guatemala, now ccmiplains, and her people is op- 
pressed by the exorbitance and increase of the Mexican taxes; and, in making an 
exception of this stipulation an agreement between Guatemala and Mexico, it seems 
natural that it will make the prosperity of Chiapas, and, consequently, that of Mex- 
ico, that now must grant subsidies to i)rovide for the misery of that department. On 
this point there is nothing to add, as I agree with the additions proposed by Senor 
Pereda in the conference of the lyth of July, to the articles 14th and 15th of the pro- 
ject of a treaty of commerce. 

10th. Senor Pereda knows also the antecedents and friendly offers with which he 
was instructed when he came. From tliat time it has been a subject of solicitude to 
unite both Governments and both countries, making of the inhabitants of each ter- 
ritory a single nation, to prevent a common danger. The treaty, therefore, ought to 
be considered only with this view, because the commercial relations of Guatemala 
have not extended farther than Chiapas, which have been preserved, notwithstanding 
the obstacles that have stood in the way. Such are our views. If, unfortunately, the 
Government of Mexico do not hold these views we will regret it, but we will have no 
power to avoid it, losiug perhaps the best o))portuiiity to secure the weal and interests 
of this continent and prevent the dangers that threaten it. 

11th. Senor Pereda will allow me to state that my reasons have not been answered, 
and that no reasons to serve as a foundation to the proposed boundary treaty have 
been alleged. I am inclined to think that all will be facilitated by including in the 
general treaty of coumierce and friendship some articles referring to this subject, 
which are those I j)ropose and which were already agreed to: 

1. The boundaries between the two republics will continue to be what they are at 
present, and if there would arise n disyiute upon this subject in regard to private prop- 
erty, said dispute will be friendly settled between the two Governments, and the 
officers on the frontiers on both sides will remain to lend their aid in such cases with- 
out awakening the jealousy of the inhabitants or arising other questions of any kind. 

2. Any person who before or on the date of this agreement would have engaged or 
supposed to have taken part in a political movement will not be disturbed on that 
account respecting the laws and authorities of the department. 

3. Any political emigrant from either of the contracting parties will not be allowed 
to remain on the frontier, nor to cause troubles in the country he is from. 

4. A convention made besides this treaty, providing for the establishment of the 
statu quo in the boundaries or the frontier will settle the liability and payment by 
Mexico of the respective debt of Chiapas to the old captain-generalship and the in- 
deuinization for the public lands of Soconusco. 

I desire to earnestly call the attention of Senor Pereda,' with the hope that he will 
do so to his illusLrious Government, to the necessity of refraining by means of an 
alliance between Mexico and Guatemala and of their illustrious chiefs, the enemies 
of the good principles in some parts of Central America, since, as it appears from 
what has occurred in the United States on the arrival of Barrundia, they begin to 
make some steps to open the doors to the enemies of our race, seeking the necessary 
means to commence their operations, making war to Guatemala that has been until 
now the skiff in which all their efforts to obtain a triumph have been wrecked. 

As this is all we can do on our part (Guatemala) all depends now iiMm Mexico. 
Senor Pereda will acknowledge this, and will be pleased to see what is best to be done 
in the premises; with the understanding that any conference will be fruitless of re- 
sults if the principles set down in this memorandum are not accepted, in preparing 
which I have tried to come to the maximum of sacrifices that we can do. 

Guatemala, September G, 1854. 

M. F. PAVON. 

Washington, D. C, May 6, lb82. 

A true translat'O'i. 

CAYETANO ROMERO; 

Secretary ad interim. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. l47 

[Inclosure No. 10.] 

Sefior Pavon, after being informed, said that tie aL^^o bad stated from tbe beginning 
,of the conferences that he did not find it easy, but full of difficulties, the conclusion 
of a boundary treaty according to the proposed terms, and much less the immediate 
appointment of the persons to mark the line ; because, apai't from the diiificulty of re- 
moving old questions, when it is intended to establish an union and alliance between 
Mexico and Guatemala, in circumstaucesof common danger to both countries, it would 
bring some coolness in the relations of both Governments, which must be avoided when 
higher interests are at stake. That Mexico is right when she asks the definite and 
irrevocable settlement of her boundaries with the United States of North America, 
whose tendencies are to usurp and invade gradually her territory, but she is not justi- 
fied in the case of Guatemala. That the reason why Guatemala rejects at present the 
idea of appointing experts is not to arise inquietude among the inhabitants of the 
frontier, beihg desirable that both Governments try to create a good feeling among 
them. That in this part, considering the antecedents of the question, without men- 
tioning disagreeable points in which Guatemala makes a great deal, she has decided in 
the negotiations pending with Mexico simply to recognize the statu quo in the bound- 
aries or frontiers of both countries, without ani/ alteration, as an antecedent which will 
facilitate some day, if it is necessary, the complete settlement of this question, which 
at present is not necessary, much less in case the close relations between the two coun- 
tries above referred to are established. Said relations must unite them, and to the 
prosecution of that end ought to tend their policy at present on account of the press- 
ing circumstances of the moment. That notwithstanding what he has stated he will 
examine Senor Pereda's project and will give his views in the next conference. 

In regard to the debt, he said that he considered this point as essential, since it is 
a lawful debt of Chiapas to Guatemala that the Mexican Government has rejected 
only because the reason of the pretension was not understood, and because thej- do 
not know the origin and nature of the subject upon which he intends to prepare a re- 
port that will be presented in due time to the minister plenipotentiary of Mexico for 
his consideration and that of his Government. This point can be treated and settled 
in a separate convention, notwithstanding that in fact all questions pending between 
Mexico and Gruatemala ought, in his opinion, to be considered as connected. Finally 
he said that all he has stated in this conference is according to the last instructions 
he has received, and as soon as possible he will meet again the plenipotentiary of 
Mexico to communicate to him what he may have to say about his memorandum of a 
project of a boundary treaty. Senor Pereda tlien said that at present he will waive 
to consider the statements just made by the plenipotentiary of Guatemala, but he will 
do it when his excellency will present to him in the next conference, his resolution 
on the project of a boundary treaty, according to the views taken on this subject. 

The conference then adjourned. 

MANUEL F. PAVON. 

JUAN NEPOMUCENO DE PEREDA. 

Washington, D. C, Maij 6, 1882. 
A true translation. 

CAYETANO ROMERO. 

Sercetary ad interim. 



[Inclosnre No. 11.] 

Treaiii between Mexico and Guatemala upon the appointment of a mixed commission of engi- 
neers 1o collect upon the ground all necessary information to fix the line of division bettveen 
both countries, 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND OP THE DISPATCH OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF 

AMERICA. 

The President has seen fit to address me the following decree : 

PORFiRio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, to all whom it may concern, 

witnesseth : 

That on the seventh day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
seven, there was concluded and signed at the federal city of Mexico a preliminary 
convention in regard to the boundary line between the United Mexican States and 
the Republic of Guatemala, by means of plenipotentiaries of the Governments of both 



148 "boundary between Mexico and Guatemala. 

countries, duly and respectively authorized to that ettect, the tenor of which is as 
follows : 

The United Mexican States on one part and the Rei)nblic of Guatemala on the other, 
desirous of iironiptly and satisfactorily settlini^ the ditrtcnlties existing between the, 
two countries on account of the long pending (luestion about the boundary line, and 
believing that the detinitive and couvenieut solution of that question will rest on 
solid foundation, by means of the appoiutment of a mixed commission which will 
furnish both (Tovernments with the necessary data in order to enable them to enter 
into mutual arrangements, and thus determine the boundary line between the two 
Kepublics, have determined to conclude a i)reliminary convention to Ihat end ; 

And have therefore apjiointed their respective plenipotentiaries, to wit: 

The President of the United Mexican States, Ignacio L. Vallarta, secretary of state 
and of the department of foreign affairs. 

The President of the Eepublic of Guatemala, Ramon Uriarte, envoy extraordinary 
and minister plenipotentiary of said Republic near the Mexican Government; 

Who having shown each other their respective full i)owers, and found them in full 
and due form, have agreed upon the following articles : 

Article I. 

m 
The high contracting parties wishing to proceed with the greatest i)robabilitie8 of 
success in determining the boundary line between the United Mexican States and 
the Republic of Guatenuila, have agreed upon sending a mixed commission of engi- 
neers, 80 as to make on the land in question the proper scientific surveys and furnish 
both Governments with accurate data upon which to base their ulterior negotiations. 

Article II. 

Said commission shall be composed of twelve eugiiieers, six of which shall be ap- 
jiointed by each of the parties in the following form : 

Two astronomical engineers and four topograjihical engineers. 

Said commission may have, besides, the assistants that may be considered neces- 
sary for the fulfillment of their mission. 

The respective appointment of engineers sha'l l)e made within two months from this 
date, and the engineers aiipointed by one and the other party shall without fail meet 
at Tapachula two months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention 
or before, if it should be possible. 

Article III. 

In order to proceed definitely in the shortest possible time to determine the bound- 
ary line between the two Republics, the survey of the line shall be divided into two 
sections. The first shall comprehend the part comprised between the Pacific Ocean 
and the Izbul Mountain, and the second, the rest of the line to the Atlantic as deter- 
mined in Article IX. 

Article IV. 

In the first of the said sections the connnissioners shall scientifically determine the 
astronomical positions of the Ocos bar and the Izbul, Mountain ; shall make a topo- 
o-raphical plan of the land comprised between these two points, following therefor the 
-course of the actual boundary line and extending to one or the other side of the same 
as much as it may be necessary for the better clearness aud understanding of said 
plan. It is to be understood that the points of the actual boundary line at present in 
dispute between the two Governments, the plan shall comprise all the disputed land 
whoever may be the Government at present in possession thereof. In case of disagree- 
ment between the members of the commission as to the survey or non-survey of some 
determinate place, the survey shall be made, aud an entry should be made in the diary 
of the operations of the coinmission, stating the motives for that opposition. Their 
labors once finished, a report should be made in duplicate, to be sent, together with a 
copy of said plan, to the Governments of Mexico jind Guatemala. 

Both the plan and the report the iireseut article refers to shall be signed by all the 
members of the commission or at least by an equal number of engineers of both par- 
ties as long as they constitute a majority of the same. 

Article V. 

In the second section of the frontier, the commission, starting from Izbul Mountain 
will continue the survey, following the course of the actual boundary till they get as 
near as possible to the boundary of the Bacalar district, state of Yucatan, aud they may 
■determine the astronomical positions of the points they may think convenient. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 149 

Said commission in tlie survey of this second section of territory shall invariably 

observe the same rules laid down in the preceding article for the survey of the first 

section, both as regards the survey of the land and formation of the plans and as to 

'the mode of proceeding in the disputed places and the making of the proper report. 

Article VI. 

The commission shall within the term of eight months, reckoned from the exchange 
of the ratifications (which terra cannot be extended) make the survey of the first 
section.of the line, and as soon as they meet at Tapachula will address a note to the 
Governments of Mexico and Guatemala informing them of snch a meeting. 

A term of six months is also fixed (which cannot be extended) for the survey of the 
second section reckoned a month after the first term is elapsed. This is not to be nn- 
derstood as meaning that if the commission should finish its labors before the expira- 
tion of said terms they could not immediately send their plans and reports referred to 
in Articles IV and V of this. 

Article VII. 

In order to enable the commission to fulfill more easily its chai-g-e and to finish the 
survey of the line as soon as possible, both Governmeuts agree to give their depend- 
ing authorities on their respective frontiers, orders to render said commission all nec- 
essary help and due assurances at the places they may have to visit. 

Article VIII. 

With the object of getting the data and information of the commission relative to 
the first of the sections in which the survey of the boundary line has been divided, 
the high contracting parties agree on suspending for six months, reckoned from the 
exchange of the ratifications of the present convention, the pending negotiations on 
limits. After the expiration of that time, said negotiations will be resumed in this 
capital, whatever may be the state of the labors of said commission. The same thing 
will take place if through any event this convention should not be carried out in 
whole or in part, as in that case, after those six months, the jiegotiations will be 
resumed as above said, with the data which both Governments may have, since the 
desire of the contracting parties is to terminate promptly the boundary question. 

Article IX. 

Should the negotiations be resumed with only the report of the commission on the 
first section of the line, the high contracting parties may agree at once through their 
respective plenipotentiaries on the survey of the boundary line all along their fron- 
tiers, in order to end and settle forthwith all the pending questions about limits, and 
this decision shall be communicated by common agreement to the mixed commission 
of engineers, so that they may suspend survey on the second section of the line, and 
the commission being considered consequently dissolved, and their labors as termi- 
nated, with the understanding that they are considered as made previous to ihe celebra- 
tion of the final treaty on limits. The reverse being the case the commission shall 
continue the survey in the terms contained in Article V without again suspending 
thereby the diplomatic negotiatioTis. 

Article X. 

During the suspension of the negotiations agreed to in Article VIII the contract- 
ing parties agree and solemnly bind themselves to respect, and give orders to their 
respective authorities to religiously respect the actual possessions, neither bringing 
up nor permitting to bring up any question in regard to boundaries, preventing all act 
of hostility both on the part of their depending authorities and also on that of their 
respective citizens. 

It is to be understood, however, that the stipulations of this article neither .justify 
nor legitimate the possessions in dispute between the two Rpublics, which possessions 
will remain with the contentious character they now have, and the respective claims 
therefor should be mutually made when the negotiations are resumed, in case both 
Governments may not agree on the survey of the line in the terms expressed iu Arti- 
cle IX, the object of the present convention not being, and it is not, to prejudge in 
any manner the question of the designation of limits. 



150 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Article XI. 

This convention shall be ratified in conformity with the constitution of both coun- 
tries, and the ratifications will be exchanged in the city of Guatemala within three 
months following thereafter, or before, if it should be possible. 

Done in duplicate in the city of Mexico, on the seventh day of December, eighteen 
hundred and seventy-seven, the fifty-seventh of the independence of both nations. 

[L. SEAL.] ' I. L. VALLARTA. 

[L. SEAL. 1 R. URIARTE. 

The foregoing convention was approved on the thirteenth day of December, eighteen 
hundred and seventy-seven, by the senate of the United Mexican States, with the fol- 
lowing modification : "The term fixed in Article VIII shall be suostituted by that of 
eight months." 

I therefore ratified it as follows: 

PORFiRio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, to all whom it may concern, 

witnesseth : 

That on the seventh day of the month of December of last year a convention be- 
tween the United Mexican States and the Republic of Guatemala was concluded and 
signed in this federal city of Mexico, through the plenipotentiaries duly authorized 
to that efiect. 

(Here follows the text of the convention.) 

That the.foregoing convention was approved on the thirteenth day of the same month 
of December, by the senate chamber of the United Mexican States, with the follow- 
ing modification : " The term fixed in Article VIII shall be substituted by that of eight 
months." 

That I, therefore, Porfirio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, by virtue 
of the authority granted me in the tenth fraction of the eighty-fifth article of the 
federal constitution, I ratify, accept, and confirm said convention with the modification 
made by the senate, and promise in the name of the same States to fulfill and observe 
it, and to see that it is fulfilled and observed. 

In testimony whereof I have made these presents, affixed my hand and the great 
seal of the nation, and visd by the secretary of state and of the dispatch of foreign 
relations, at the national palace of Mexico, on the twenty-fourth day of the mouth 
of January, of the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, the fifty-eighth of the 
independence of the United Mexican States. 

PORFIRIO DIAZ. 

J. L. VaLLARTA. [(iUEAT SEAL.] 

That the term fixed in Article XI of the foregoing convention for the exchange of 
the ratifications at the city of Guatemala having elapsed, it was necessary to make a 
treaty extending said term, and this was done through the plenipotentiaries duly au- 
thorized, concluding and signing the following on the twenty-fourth day of May of 
eighteen hundred and seventy -eight. 

The President of the United Mexican States on one part, and the President of Gua- 
temala, on the other part, considering that the ratifications of the convention made 
between both Governments on the seventh of Deceml)er of last year, 1877, could not 
be exchanged within the. term therein fixed, have agreed to make an arrangement fix- 
ing a new term for the exchange of the ratifications, and for the appointment and 
meeting of the engineers that are to form the mixed commission ; 

And have .-ippointed to that eftect their plenipotentiaries, to wit : 

The President of the United Mexican States, Jose Fernandez, cliief clerk of the de- 
partment of foreign relations, and the President of tlie Republic of Guatemala, Ramon 
Uriarte, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of said Republic in the 
United Mexican States; 

And said iiieuipotentiaries having shown each other their respective full powers, and 
found them in projjer and due form, have agreed on the following articles : 

Article I. 

The exchange of the ratifications of the convention of the 7th of December, 1877, 
shall take place in the city of Guatemala, at the latest on the 30th of September of 
the jireseut year ; or sooner, if possible. 

Article II. 

The engineers ap])ointed by both contracting parties shall meet without fail at 
Tapachula, on the first day of November next, at the latest, and their appointments 
shall be made vith tlie corresponding anticipation. 



BOUNDARY BEITWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 151 

These articles are and shall be coDsidered. as if forming i)art of the said conveution 
of the 7th of December, 1877, and shall have the same force and vigor as if inserted 
therein. 

In testimony whereof we, the plenipotentiaries, have signed these presents in dupli- 
cate, affixing our seals in the city of Mexico, on the twenty -fourth day of the month of 
May, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. 

JOSE FERNANDEZ. 
E. URIARTE. 

That this convention extending the term afterwards, was also approved by the sen- 
ate of the United Mexican States, on the twenty-fifth day of May, eighteen hundred 
and seventy-eight ; 

That I therefore ratify it as follows : 

PoRFiRio Diaz, President of the United Mexican States, to all whom it may concern, 

witnesseth : 

Whereas, on the twenty-fourth day of May, of the present year, a convention between 
the United Mexican States and the Republic of Gruatemala was concluded and signed 
in this federal city of Mexico, through the plenipotentiaries duly authorized to that 
effect, of the following form and teuor. 

(Here follows a text of the convention.) 

That the foregoing convention was approved by the senate chamber of the United 
Mexican States on the twenty-fourth day of said month of May. 

Therefore, I, Porfirio Diaz, President of the Uuited Mexican States, by virtue of 
the authority granted me by the tenth fraction of the eigkity-fifth article of the fed- 
eral constitution, do ratify, accept, and confirm said convention, and promise in the 
name of said States to fulfill and observe it, and to see that it is fulfilled and ol)served. 

In testimony whereof I have made these presents, put rny baud and affixed the 
great seal of the nation, and vis6 by the chief clerk in charge of the department of 
state and of the dispatch of foreign relations, at the national palace of Mexico, on 
the twenty-sixth day of May, of the year eighteen huudred and seventy-eight, the 
fifty-eighth of the independence of the United Mexican States. 

PORFIRIO DIAZ. 

Jos^ Fernandez.- [great seal.] 

That the President of the Republic of Guatemala, on the twenty-sixth day of April, 
eighteen huudred and seventy-eight, approved and ratified the convention on limits, 
signed the seventh day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, with the 
amendment made by the Mexican senate. 

That the President of the Republic of Guatemala likewise approved and ratified the 
convention signed on the twenty-fourth day of May, eighteen hnndred and seventy- 
eight, extending the term fixed for the exchange of the ratifications of the convention 
signed on the seventh day of December, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven ; 

And that the ratifications of both conventions were exchanged at the city of Gaute- 
mala, on the fourth day of July, eigteen hundred and seventy-eight ; 

Therefore I order that it should be printed, published, circulated, and duly kept. 

Palace of the federal Government, Mexico, on the seventeenth day of the month of 
September, eighteen hundred and seventv-eight. 

PORFIRIO DIAZ. 

To the acting chief clerk in charge of the department of state and of the dispatch 
<xf foreign relations. 

And I communicate it to you for the necessary ends. 
Liberty and constitution. 
Mexico, September 17, 1878. 

ELEUTERIO AVILA, 

Chief Clerk. 



[Inclosure No. 12.] 

Mr. Herrera to Mr. Mariscal, inclosing project of a treaty between Mexico and Guatemala. 

Mexico, January 14, 1882. 
To His Excellency Don Ignacio Mariscal, 

Minister of Foreign Relations, city: 
Mr. Minister: I have the pleasure of complying with the agreement made in the 
interview I had the honor of holding with your excellency on the 2d instant, in con- 
sequence of your note of the 30th of December last, which I received in reply to mine, 



152 



BOUNDAEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



No. 305, of the26tb of the same month, to which effect I inclose a preface and sixteen 
articles of a project of a treaty which is intenced to mark definitely the boundary line 
between Guatemala and Mexico, and in which I estaldisli upon a solid and vast 
foundation, the relations of sincere and brotherly friendship which in future ought 
to unite both nations. 

The present may not be the proper moment to reassume the said relations, which 
unfortunately have been disturbed more than once, uotwithstaudiug the ever strong 
endeavors to' render them sincei-e and intimate; but it is the luost propitious one to 
assure that we have reached the success of said endeavors. 

From the moment our questions arose many and diverse tendencies were shown in 
search of the means to be employed to terminate them ; but the study of the nature 
of said means has produced in me the conviction of their inefficiency. In my oiiiniou, 
these questions have not be<^n originated by the doubt regarding the limits between 
the state of Chiapas and the Republic of Guatemala, because a simple tract of land, 
as vast and fertile as we might suppose it to be, could never produce differences more 
or less serious between sister nations, which, in the »ct of j)roclaiming their inde- 
pendence frouj the common metropolis, came into possession of iuunense zones, which, 
even at present, they iiy to populate, attracting an immigration from Europe by 
means of wise and liberal laws- 

The real question, the incontestable origin of our differences, is a question of prin- , 
ciple, which intimately affects the right of both nations. The old provinces of Chiapas 
and Soconusco, which to-day are a state of the Mexican federation and have for- 
merly been subordinate to the captain-general of Guatemala, have legitimately beciune 
a part of said federation. On this matter much has been said by the public writers 
of both countries, and much has also been argued by the representatives of both Gov- 
ernments. It has T)een impossible to come to an understanding, and the difference 
of opinions and interests indicated the necessity of having recourse to a judge, which, 
being unconnected with the question, would decide it. Once elucidated, a short time 
would have been sufficient to trace the limits. If Chiapas belongs to Guatemala the 
survey would be unnecessary, because its situation is marked by the limits of the sur- 
rounding states; but it Chiaj)as belongs to Mexico, nothing would be easier than to 
fix its limits with Guatemala by means of an amicable agreement. Notwithstanding 
the question remains in the same state, as Mexico is in possession of the disputed 
part, she rejects, and has officially declared so, all discussions. Guatemala, in her 
firm belief that Chiai)a8 and Soconusco belong to her, regrets every day that she has 
to suffer again from an insult she thinks she has received from Mexico, and which, 
since the date of its declaration, has acquired larger proportions. Guatemala cannot 
receive laws from Mexico, nor can Mexico submit to those given by Guatemala. As 
both are careful to preserve their autonomy and their glories, just and elevated is the 
sentiment which rejects any tendency capable of exposing the former or of withering 
the latter. In the serious conflict produced by this situation, several endeavors have 
repeatedly been made by Guatemala to incline Mexico to admit an arbitration, who- 
ever the judge she designates might be, and even if such commis-sion should be con- 
ferred to a Mexican judge ; and said Republic will also make several efforts in order 
to compel Guatemala to obey a declaration which isopjiosedto her independence, and 
virould make her appear to other nations as unworthy of being enumerated among the 
free nations. 

Firmly convinced as I am of the exactness of these considerations, I had the honor 
of jnesenting them to the very enlightened one of your excellency, when, iu our in- 
terview of tiie 11th of July last, I reidied definitely to the answer I received from 
your excelleucy regarding the renovation of the already extinct Uriarte-Vallarta treaty 
of the Ttli of December, 1877. In that really preliminary agreement we find the fol- 
lowing disjunctive: As the frontier is to lie investigated at the south of Chiapas, 
does Guateruala prescind from the rights she thinks she has on the territory occupied 
by said state, or does she maintain them integral in order to elucidate them at a later 
period and to make them the object of legitimate compensations iu case she deter- 
mines to resign them? As there is not a single expression in the treaty which illus- 
trates the disjunctive and regulates the decision to be given, the question remained 
snbsistent, as it has been until the pi-esent. In the act of making that agreement, it 
has never been the intention of Guatem;ila to resign her rights upon Chiapas and 
Soconusco. If they are the object of the dispute, and if Guatemala knew it as well 
as Mexico, why, then, has this point not been clearly and exjdicitly fixed in the con- 
vention f Why, then, both nations stipulated future agreements to be made after the 
investigation of the frontiisr ? This circumstance compelled me to state, wheu your 
excellency pleased to insist upou the necessity of our reforming the preliminary agree- 
ment mentioned, that [ would accede, if a new article should be accei>ted containing 
the declaration, that the said agreement did not prejudice the question about the 
right of property of Chiapas and Soconusco. I wished to show by this conduct the 
consent of my Government to the measures which might lead us to an amicable agree- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 153 

meut, and also to avoid future interpetations of a consent which Guatemala had uot 
giveu, uor could be cajiable of giving. 

Your excellency did not consider it possible to admit the additional article I had 
proposed, because, as you deigned to indicate to nie, Mexico could not make it feasi- 
ble to have her rights upon Chiapas and Socouusco discussed. I then regretted that I 
had to decline irremissibly the reform of the Uriarte-Vallarta treaty, and so much 
more did I regret it, as I found myself compelled to reject the only proposition Mexico 
has made. It is true that she has presented other><, but they were all founded upon 
tile maintenance of the statu quo, viz, upuu the condition that Mexico fshouLd, with- 
out discussion, maintain for herself the territories of Chiapas and Socouusco. If 
Guatemala, for very just reasons, had not accepted such jjropositions in which she would 
at least with complete frankness resign rights which she believes belong to her, she 
could not admit either that of refornjiug a convention, if by doing so, tacit ackuowi- 
edgments and implicit resignations would be exacted from her. 

We then remained iu the same situation: uncertainty about the rights and ob- 
scurity regarding the limits. 

Intimately interested in defining it, and understanding, because history with incon- 
testable facts tells me so, that this situation becomes more intolerable every day ; that 
it leads us to deplorable consequences ; that it separates what nature and tradition 
have united, and what Ave ought to tighten, — I reflected upon the way of breaking 
all obstacles which have arisen between nations to which the blood, language, laws, 
creeds, institutions, misfortunes, and glories exclaim, that they are brothei's. 

I find that I have succeeded in choosing this medium, and it could not be otherwise, 
as I was guided by the aim of the practical and honorable conciliation between both 
nations, none of which could be supposed to wish to be depressed or otiended in the 
least. I have attempted to establish harmony, if I may express myself so, between 
two incompatibilities. It Avould be incompatible with the constitution of Mexico, if 
the Government of said Republic would admit a discussion about the existence of one 
of her federative entities: and it would be incompatible for Guatemala, according to 
her constitution and to the code of honor of an independent nation, if, without just 
compensation, she should abstain from the discussion of rights which, for more than 
half a. century, she is trying to sustain, and for the safety of which she has in due time 
raised the voice of her protest. But as anything is attainable when an honest inten- 
tion guides the wishes, sooner or later a helping voice had to rise. 

It is Udt the increase of her dominion, but the respect of her laws, what interests 
Mexico ; and if we consult her self-love, the maintenance of her politics. What con- 
cerns Guatemala, is to save her honor, which is the first and the most sacred of her 
duties. In consequence conciliatory and practical ought to be an agreement by 
which Guatemala consents freely and spontaneously to respect the actiial state of 
things, abstaining from every discussion about the rights of Mexico upon Chiapas and 
Soc<)n^^9co, wtiile the United States of Mexico give her a compensation, not for the 
value of said territories, but for the act of brotherly abnegation with which she de- 
sists from all discussion. 

This princi]5ls being established, there is no obstacle to prevent the demarkation of 
the definite limits, which* may on the ground divide both nations, but will never 
have the power of separating them in their history, uot iu the fair future which destiny 
has marked out to them. 

In interviews of the 18th and 19th of August last year, I had the honor of present- 
ing to your excellency, as a basis of a treaty, those I have just mentioned, it being ex- 
tremely satisfactory forme to see that your excellency considers them to be practical 
and acceptable. In conformity with your excellency, and without special instructions 
regarding the arrangement I had proposed to you, because the full power I possess 
did uot refer to the same in any way, as I had conceived the idea for the first time, 
I communicated it to my Government, by the next mail, and your excellency knows 
that it met with approbation and I was fully authorized to carry it out. ,1 had the 
honor of stating the fact to your excellency in my note No. 248, of the 1st of October 
of last year, and your excellency, in your answer dated the 4th of the same month, has 
pleased to indicate to me that your Government was favorably disposed to open the 
negotiations I had proposed. As the determination of the boundary line is one of the 
points of our arrangement, and 1 was without the data necessary for its fixation, I 
agreed with your excellency, on the 3d of November, to write to Guatemala asking 
for an engineer to assist me, and thus to avoid all kinds of difficulties and loss of tim,e. 
My Government always consenting to all which might favor the definite negotiations, 
hastened to send to me the person [ had asked for, and so I said to your excellency in 
my note No. 305 of the 26th of December last. As I have stated at the beoinning of this 
note, your excellency has pleased to indicate to me that, as I had initiated the ar- 
raugements, it would be convenient that I should present to you a written project. 
The one I accompany is founded upon the same basis as my propositions made to your 
excellency verbally on the I8thaud 19th of August. 

Its Article I, by establishing that there shall be no discussion about Chiapas and 



154 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Soconusco, puts forever au end to the motive of the questions existinii; betweeu the 
two Republics, and of the difiSculties met with by the negotiators which have been 
our predecessors. 

Article VII, by omitting and absolutely canceling all reclamations which for credits 
and debts previ<.ns to their indepeiidence have been made, or should l)e attempted to 
be made, uuitually by Guatemala and Mexico, has put an end to (juite a long series 
of old reclamations, at the head of wliich appears the debt of the province of Chiapas 
in favor of Guatemala. 

Article VIII, in its tirst part, also ends all claims for damages and advances in- 
flicted between private parties until the 7th of December, 1877, at which date the 
Uriarte-Vallarta convention was signed. If it does not stipulate the same condition 
in its second part, it is because said convention being entered into, both nations, as 
well as their citizens, had to respect the statu quo established by the same, notwith- 
standing the same second part establishes the speedy and conciliatory manner of set- 
tling those claims which remain in force. 

Article VII establishes equitably the compensation or the onerous cause in virtue 
of which Guatenuila desists forever and ever from the discussions aforesaid. Several 
antecedents given by tiie history of Mexico would have authorized the representative 
of Guatemala to fix a much larger sum, and at shorter terms, and this would also be 
justified by the very prosperous state of the federal income ; but he has asked a small 
sum, payable in exiguous installments and at long terms, in order to make disai)pear 
even the least favorable interpietation of the disinterestedness of Guatemala and her 
wish to facilitate to Mexico the conclusion of the convention. From the part of 
Guatemala excels above all the noble thought that in her propositions she has not 
considered, nor does she consider, her interest at the expense of her sister. 

Articles IV and V determine in justice the future fate of the properties, which, be- 
longing now to Guatemala, might corresnond to Mexico, when the line is drawn, or 
vice r^ersa, they determine the law which shall rule, and prevent and render impossible 
future, although remote combinations, by which the discontent of one country or the 
other would like to endanger international peace. 

Article II indicates the limits which Guatemala and Mexico bind themselves to 
recognize and respect perpetually. In general the basis adopted has been the posses- 
sion which eitherof the two Republics maintains in order not to alarm the privatepro- 
prietors, as well as not to injure the interests created there for more or less time. The 
drawing of this line through the points marked is also an immediate and forcible con- 
sequence of the stipulations of Article I, in which, by abstaining from discussious, we 
respect the facts ; that is, we abide by the possession. The project I accompany diifers 
from it oiriy in the first section of the line, viz, in part of the river Zuchiate, because 
Guatemala does not possess actually the space between the mouth of said river and 
the barof Ocos, a distance of, more or less, 4,000 meters. But if we follow the course of 
said river, we soon I'each the possessions of Guatemala. This deviation is justified by 
the convenience of establishing a natural and almost indestructible limit, which cas- 
ually is the most proximate to the actual frontier of Guatemala. 

Article III only details the proceeding to which the engineers commissioned to draw 
the line have to adhere so as to occupy the least time possible. 

Articles IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV, which are somewhat unconnected with the 
question to be settled by the treaty, open a vast and fertile field to the relations be- 
tween both nations, as they extinguish old reminiscences which will be substituted 
by the fortunate harmony of friendly and common sentiments. Inexpressible would 
be the satisfaction of Guatemala if Mexico accepted the stipulations contained in these 
articles. ~ 

Article XV marks the possession which from this date lioth Governments are to re- 
spect mutually. It is but natural that such should be the case, because, as I have 
said before, the line drawn by Article II respects the actual possessions with the very 
slight varjation mentioned. 

Finally, Article XVI does not fix any term for the exchange of ratifications, and so 
prevents the difficulties which might arise from auy delay, and perhaps nullify the 
treaty. 

I entertain the pretension of believing that the Government of your excellency 
knows how to do jnstice.to the honest intentions of the Governtnent of Guatemala, and 
to my own in particular; and with all the sincerity of which I am capable, I solemnly 
declare to your excellency that the project I have the honor of submitting to your en- 
lightened and elevated consideration, is produced by the most fraternal and concilia- 
tory of intentions. 

We have passed nearly sixty years in fruitless debates, far from dedicating our- 
selves to the quiet enjoyment of family pleasures, inasmuch as Guatemala and Mexico 
form oue and the same family, and, far from enjoying the inheritance we have re- 
ceived, an adverse destiny has separated us. 

In the century of right all nations dispute about the honor of paying just homage 
to civilization, the cause of humanity ; the few exceptions registered by our contem- 



BOUNDAEY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 155 

porary history have met with the unanimous reprobation of uiaakiad, and have, with- 
out any doubt, conquered the anathema of the future. Guatemala and Mexico have 
not the mission of putting a new cipher on the wretched catalogue of said exceptions. 
The world is expectant to see what these two young RepTiblics will do, and they will 
tell to the world that hatred cannot exist between brothers, and that there are abund- 
ant w;iys to arrange honorably faiuilj' ditiereuces. 

If it is possible, Mr. Minister, that we soon give so salutary an example, as I have 
said to your excellency on a previous occasion, the actual administrations of Guate- 
mala and Mexico will have acquired the most enviable of glories. 

I beg of your excellency to admit the sincere manifestations of the distinguished 
esteem and of the very respectful regard with which I am your excellency's obedient 
servant, 

MANUEL HEEEERA, Jr. 



[Inclosure No. 13.] 

Prnject of a treaty. 

The Government of the Republic of Guatemala and that of the United Mexican 
States being desirous of radically and definitively ending the boundary question which 
they have been discussing for some time past, as also the difficulties which have 
originated therefrom, and desirous likewise of establishing on a solid basis the close 
friendship which must unite both nations, and inspired by motives of high policy 
and more yet of international brotherhood, have decided to make a treaty to obtain 
such cherished and laudable objects, and to that end have appointed their respective 
plenipotentiaries, to wit, &c., &c., who, having shown each other their full powers 
and found them in due form, have agreed on the following articles : 

Article I. 

The rights which the Mexican Eepnblic has or judges to have over the state of 
Chiapas and its department Soconusco, shall neither directly nor indirectly be sub- 
ject to discussion ; aud the Republic of Guatemala freely and spontaneously trans- 
fers to that of Mexico the rights she has or judges to have over the said territory of 
Chiapas, including Soconusco. 

Article II. 

The boundary between the Eepublics of Guatemala and Mexico shall definitively 
and forever be determined as follows : 

1st. From the western shore of the Zuchiate Bar at its mouth in the Pacific Ocean 
and along the same side of said river to its confluence with the Mixcum Eiver. 

2d. From the confluence of the Mixcum and Zuchiate to the Tecpau Cuilco River, 
at the place where the road leading from the village of Cuilco Viejo to the Piuabete 
Mountain and the village of Tacana crosses it. 

3d. From the Tecpau Cuilco River, at the place where said road intersects it to the 
Zapote, a place situated between Escunitla aud San Francisco Matecuitla. 

4th. From Zapote to the confluence of the Cuilco and Topesala River. 

5th. From the said conflueuce in a straight line to the top of the Izbul Mountain, on 
the side of which mountain the houses '' Gracias a Dios " are situated. 

6th. From the summit of the Izbul Mountain continuing the above line in the 
same direction till it strikes the Usumacinta River. 

7th. From the middle of the Usumacinta in its deepest chaouel, in case it should 
have several branches, to the first waterfall formed on crossingthe chain of mountains 
dividing the state of Campeche from the Republic of Guatemala. 

8th. From the first waterfall in a straight line to the point where it intersects the 
meridiau 9 degrees east of Mexico, and the 19th parallel according to the geographi- 
cal and administrative chart of the United Mexican States made by Mr. Garcia Cubas 
in 1873. 

9th. Following the 19th parallel to the sea of the Antilles or Gulf of Honduras, on 
the Atlantic. 

Article III. 

For the practical survey of the line agreed upon the Governments of Guatemala and of 
Mexico shall, after the exchange of the ratifications, appoint, each one, two topographi- 
cal and one astronomical engineers. Said Governments shall previously fix the day 
and place where the commission of engineers must meet for the commencement of their 
labors. The authorities of Guatemala and of Mexico shall give guarantees and aid to 
the commissioners who are to determine by common agreement the distances and 
manner in which the visible and durab e monuments marking the boundary line are 



156 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

to be erected. All the expenses incurved iu by the survey, with the exceptiou of the 
salaries and maintenance of the commissioners, shall be common to both Governments, 
who will pay them iu equal moieties. The six commissioners shall divide their labors 
iu three sections : the tirst one composed of two astronomers, and the other two of one 
Guatemalan and <me Mexican engineer each. The individuals composing the commis- 
siou can work separately on the previous survey, but in the final one of the boundary 
they shall do it in sections as established. To better facilitate the operations for the 
previous surveys, these could be properly extended ; but for the final survey of the 
line the commissioners have to circumscribe themselves in the details to a distance 
not exceeding two kilometers on each side. 

The sections of engineers shall keep a duplicate diary of the ojieratious and make 
also iu duplicate partial plans of the part of the frontier they are surveying. The 
plans and diaries shall be signed by the respective sections. The total survey of the 
frontier once finished all the commissioners or the majority of them shall draw and 
sign in duplicate the general map of the same. 

Tiiis document, as also the diaries of the operations and the partial plans, shall be 
considered as part of this party, and have the same value or force it has. They all 
shall be sent to the department of foreign relations of Mexico, where they shall be 
signed and sealed by the plenipotentiary of Guatemala and the secretary of state of 
Mexico. 

Both officials shall have a copy of said documents taken, which will at all times 
serve as an invariable rule for the settlement of the dift'erences which may unhappily 
arise on account of the frontier iiossessions. 

Article IV. 

The Government of Guatemala shall respect as valid the titles of lauds which, ac- 
cording to Mexican laws, should have been issued in .Mexico before this date on terri- 
tory wliicli before belonged to it but now belongs to Guatemala by virtue of this 
treaty; and the Mexican Government shall recognize in the same circumstance the 
proper validity of the possessions which were Gu<atemalan before and are now Mexican. 

Both the one and the other shall hereafter be subject to the laws of the country in 
which they are situated. 

Article V. 

The limits as fixed in tliis treaty shall not be varied unless with the express and 
free consent of both nations enacted in conformity with the fundamental laws in 
force thereof, and in the unexpected hypothesis of a political fraction of either of the 
two Republics presenting the dismemberment of part of the territory of one of them 
to annex it to the other, that act, whatever may be its form, is hereby declared essen- 
tially void and an attempt against the national sovereignty. 

Article VI. 

In cousideratiou of the boundary definitively acquired by Mexico and of the assent 
of Guatemala by virtue of which she foregoes all discussion relative to her rights 
over Chiapas and Soconusco, the United Mexican States shall deliver to the represent- 
ative of Guatemala and to his Government's order, 4,000 bonds, of the value of $1,000 
each, payable in cash in this city, in Mexican gold or silver money in the follow- 
ing teruis, no interest whatever l)eing charged thereon : $200,000 two months after 
the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, and an equal amount in each one of 
the following nineteen years reckoned from the date of the first iustallment. The 
total amount representing the value of the bonds shall be exempt from all export 
duty established by the Mexican federal Government or by the state legislature 
through which the exportation should be made, in case theowuer of the bonds should 
wish it so, in which case due notice will be given to the respective officials so as to have 
the proper orders issued to that effect. 

Article VII. 

Each and every claim presented or intended to be presented by either Republic 
against the other, arising from credits or debts incurred in before the independence 
of both Republics, are entirely canceled. 

Article VIII. 

Every claim of Guatemala against Mexico, and vice versa, brought or to be brought 
on account of advances or damages which the proprietors of lands oti the frontier or 
the authorities of the neighboring villages have made or caused up to the 7th of De- 
cember, 1^77, are likewise entirely canceled. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 157 

As regards the claims arising from tlie same cause after that date presented or to 
be presented by either Government against the other, it is acknowledged that they 
be discussed and settled in this city, and that the negotiators of this treaty be in- 
spired with the friendly spirit of the same. 

But it is only stipulated that should unfortunately it be impossible to settle one or 
several of said claims the present convention shall not thereby lose its effect. 

Article IX. 

The Governments of Guatemala and of Mexico shall try to conclude a treaty for the 
extradition of criminals, based on the general principles governing this kind of 
agreements, and on the particular ones of the constitution and laws of both Repub- 
lics. 

Article X. 

The Governments of Guatemala and of Mexico bind themselves to connect as soon 
as possible their telegraphic lines, at least in one point of the frontier, which will be 
determined, consulting previously the convenience of both nations. The telegraphs 
once connected a convention shall be made for its service, establishing low tariffs and 
exempting from all payment the telegrams emanating directly from the Governments, 
the authorities, and the diplomatic representatives of both Republics. 

Article XI. 

Within the limits allowed by the universal postal convention the Governments of 
Guatemala and of Mexico shall try to conclude a private agreement to facilitate and 
cheapen the communications between both countries. 

Article XII. 

Within the limits allowed by the laws of the two Republics, their Governments shall 
try to make an agreement to miitually recognize the professional titles issued in any 
part of the two nations. 

Article XIII. 

When the interests of both countries should suggest it, a treaty of commerce and 
navigation shall be made to facilitate and encourage, for the benefit of both nations, 
those two branches. 

Article XIV. 

In case the agreement referred to in Articles IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII should not 
for some reason be made, or if made they should be declared void, this treaty shall 
not lose its force and value in all the other points therein comprehended. 

Article XV. 

For the effects of the possession, both Governments solemnly bind themselves to 
respect and make respected henceforth the limits established in Article II. 

Article XVI. 

The present treaty shall be ratified according to the laws of each one of tbe con- 
tracting parties, to wliicb effect the Government of Guatemala will send it to tbe as- 
sembly and that of Mexico to the senate at the next sessions. The exchange of the 
ratifications shall be made at the city of Mexico at the earliest possible time. 

Mexico, January 14, 1882. 

MANUEL HERRERA, Jr. 



No. 54. 

Mr. Frelinghuysefi to Mr. Romero. 

Department op State, 

Washington, May 13, 1882. - 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
6th instant, in relation to the difficulties between the Eei)ublics of Mexico 
and Guatemala. The very full statements you make in regard to this 
question will, at as early a day as possible, have my attentive considera- 
tion. 

Accept, &c., 

FEED'K T. FEELII!^GHUYSEN. 



158 'boundary between Mexico and Guatemala. 

:n"o. 55. 
Mr. Romero io Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Translatiou.] 

Legation of Mexico in the United States of America, 
Washington, June 23, 1882. (Received June 27.) 

Mr. Secretary: Iu tlie note wbich I had the honor to address you 
on the 0th of May ultimo, presenting- a succinct statement of the origin 
and present status of the difficulties between Mexico and Guatemala in 
regard to the boundary question, I informed you that Seiior Don 
Manuel Herrera, jr., minister of Guatemala in Mexico, had submitted 
to the Mexican Government a draft of a boundary treaty dated on the 
14th of January last, accompanied by an extensive exposition of the 
same date, a copy of Avbich documents I inclosed you with my above 
mentioned note under No. J 2, stating, at the same time, that iu my 
opinion, said draft was inacceptable to the Mexican Government, since 
it proposed the cession by Mexico to the Republic of Guatemala of a con- 
siclerable portion of the states of Yucatan, Campeche, and Tabasco, and 
even a portion of the state of Cbiai)as itself, to which territories Guate- 
mala had never claimed nor pretended to claim any right whatever, and, 
besides, because it asked a pecuniary indemnification to be paid by Mexico 
to Guatemala ten times larger than the one asked by Guatemala in 1853. 

I have now the honor to send you a translation into English of a note 
which, the secretary of foreign affairs of Mexico addressed to Senor 
Herrera, minister of Guatemala, dated at the City of Mexico on the 15th 
instant, in reply to Seiior Herrera's note of the 14th of January last, in 
which the considerations that make inacceptable for the Government of 
Mexico the draft submitted by Seiior Herrera are fully set forth. 

Having brought said draft to your knowledge I think proper, in order 
to acquaint you with all the incidents of tbis question, to communicate 
to you the reply of the Mexican Government to said draft. 
1 avail, &;c., 

M. ROMERO. 



[Inclosnre in No. 55. — Translation.] 

Mr. Mariscal to Mr, Herrera. 

Department of Foreign Affairs, 

Mexico, June 5, 1882. 
Mr. Minister : I had the honor of receiving in due time your excellency's note of the 
14thof January last, in which you submitto the Mexican Governnientaprojectof a treaty 
for the deterininatiou of a boundary line between Mexico and Guatemala, as a definite 
limit, and for the settlement of some other ditticulties pending between both nations. 
Although the simple reading of said document and a glance at the map of Mexico 
suffice to form an almosr complete idea about everything pretended by your excellency, 
I have thought it would be preferable, in order to duly answer your note, to consult 
first the diflerent negotiations entered into between Mexico and Guatemala for the 
settlement of their limits, to make a comparative study of the various lines proposed, 
and to hear the opinion of experts. This study being made already, and with a full 
knowledge of the matter, I cannot, while replying to the aforementioned note of the 
14th of January, feel the same pleasure your excellency seems to have experienced in 
writing it, and see, on the contrary, that th(i exaggerated pretensions of your excel- 
lency, which are designed to obtain for your country advantages which never before 
had been enunciated, remove us more and more from every way of making an arrange- 
ment, and that the idea which your excellency calls a saving one is by no means ac- 
ceptable for Mexico. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 159 

As the note to which I refer consists of two parts, one being an introduction and 
the other one containing the project of the treaty, I shall before examining the latter 
touch some points of the first, which must not remain without a decisive answer. 
"It has never been," says your excellency, ''the intention of Guatemala, when that 
convention was entered into (the preliminary of December 7, 1877), to resign her 
rights upon Chiapas aud Soconusco. If they are the subject of the dispute ; if Guate- 
mala knew it, as Mexico did, wby, then, hastbispoiut not been clearly aud«xplicitly 
fixed in the couveiition ; why, then, both nations stipulated future arrangements to 
be made after the investigation of the boundary f" I shall answer these questions 
inversely, in order to leave the most important one to the last. Future arrangements 
were mentioned, because the convention of the 7th of December was not a settlement 
of the boundary question, but a solemn compronjise to investigate the ground over 
which said boundary might pass with more or less approximation. On the part of 
Mexico it was not pretended that an express resignation of Guatemala's supposed 
rights upon Chiapas aud Soconusco should be made, because this was not the definite 
treaty, and also because Mexico had never recognized such rights, but constantly af- 
firmed that she does not admit any discussion regarding this subject. If, ou the part 
of Guatemala, nothing has been said about the same in the convention referred to it is- 
your excelhncy, and not myself, who should explain this significative silence. 

In fact, Mr. Minister, if Guatemala has not had the intention of resigning her 
rights upon Chiapas, why did she agree to the investigation to be made, not ou the 
line which separates Chiapas from the other Mexican states, but on that which sep- 
arates it from the Guatemalan territory? Why, as your excellency asks with just- 
ness, did not Guatemala take the care or adding a clause ad hoc or of inserting at the 
end that the convention did not prejudice at all her rights upon Chiapas, instead of 
referring only to the ground which was going to be the subject of the investigation 
agreed to ? The truth is, that Guatemala made then a tacit, so evident enough, res- 
ignation of her rights upon Chiapas and Soconusco. This is proved by the foregoing 
considerations, and confirmed as well by the desire shown by the Govemmt-ut of 
Guatemala not to renew the above-mentioned convention as by the pleasure felt at 
the caducity of the same, as it appears from official documents. No, how could it be 
doubted I hat such convention contained the resignation mentioned when this resig- 
nation had been made previously in express, though less solemn acts, of which I shall 
take charge hereafter"/ " This compelled me (continues the note), when your ex- 
cellency pleased to insist upon the necessity of our renewing that preliminary con- 
vention, to declare that I would accede, if a new article were accepted to the effect that 
the convention mentioned did not prejudice the question regarding the ownership of Chiapas 
and Soconusco, &c." I would have experienced much pleasure if your excellency had 
made to me a formal proposition with regard to it, because it would have been a new 
evidence of Guatemala's resignation, by the convention of December 7, 1877, of her 
rights upon Chiapas and Soconusco, but it is not true, and I am sorry to say so, that 
such ])ropositiou was ever made to me. I remember, on the contrary, and with all 
distinctness, that in our interviews we agreed upon renewing the convention without 
any other alteration than that regarding the terms which would have to be fixed to 
the mixed commission for the accomplishment of their principal work ; that the re- 
newed convention was not perfected, because your excellency said you had no instruc- 
tions from your Government ; that, knowing you had received them already, I ques- 
tioned you about the same, and you gave me an afSrmative answer, adding, however, 
that you would ask for explanations, as the instructions you had received were not 
clear enough ; and finally, that these explanations, without arriving at Mexico, were 
secretly transtbrmed into instructions given to Senor Ubico to solicit the mediation of 
the United States in the pending difficulties. That convention, which for a year up to 
the present has been the mark of the opposition of Guatemala, has not been exacted 
from her by surprise ; nor is it possible to suppose that the plenipotentiary of Guate- 
mala, in stipulating it, should have transgressed his authority, because in 1878 his 
excellency Prchident Barrios ratilied said convention and the correlative one, agreed 
upon by the plenipotentiaries Don Jos6 Fernandez and Don Ramon Uriarte on the 
24th of May, aud one year later the oth«r correlative one made ou the 3d of March, 
1879, between the Mexican plenipotentiary. Minister of Foreign Affairs Don Miguel 
Ruelas, and the same Senor Uriarte. 

I do not know, nor is it my duty to find out, whether your excellency, as might be 
inferred, has been the inspirer of the resistance of your Government to revive the 
convention of 1877, after his excellency President Barrios had given to our ministerj 
in an interview, the assurance that it would be renewed, and after the secretary of 
foreign att'airs, Senor Montufa, had also assured him in another interview, that by 
the next mail instructions of the same meaning would be sent to your excellency. 
At all events, I deplore for the sake of the people of Mexico and of that of Guate- 
mala, the most serious difficulties in which they are actually involved, while those 
experienced before had already been on the way to their settlement. Proceeding 
now to consider the project of treaty itself, and without stopping at the clauses relat- 



160 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

ing to the future couveutious of extradition, telegraph and postal commnnicatiou, 
professional diplomas, commerce and navigation, for. the insertion of which in the 
project we are considering I cannot tind a satisfactory explanation, and without re- 
ferring either to other artit-les, wliich arc very secondary iu comparison with Articles 
I, II, and VI, I shall limit my observations to these. But in order that on all future 
occasions the supposed facilities, which now are offered to the Mexican Government 
to terminate her differences with Guatemala in regard to the boundary, and the in- 
tention of the Governnu^nt of your excelleucy to obtain this ])urpose may be duly 
appreciated, I will make, Mr. Minister, a brief recapitulation of the various proposi- 
tious, which in different epochs have been made to us in order to terminate the dif- 
ferences alluded to. 

On the 3d of March, 1854, in an interview held iu Guatemala, by Don Juan N. de 
Pereda, euvoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Mexico, and Don Manuel 
F. Pavon, plenipotentiary, of Guatemala, the latter presented a project of treaty of 
limits, Article I of which says, literally, as follows: 

" Ahtici.e 1. The limits of Chiapas and Soconu.sco on this side of Guatemala, as" 
Avell as those of the district of El Petero, on the other side, with respect to Yucatan, 
all of them, according to the recognition made of the same previously to the inde- 
pendence, when said territories were a part of the general captaincy of Guatemala, 
shall continue to be, as they are to-day, the limits or frontier between the Republics 
of Mexico and Gnatemala. If any doubt, &c.'' 

Its Article ^'I says: "Article (i. In consideration of the debt which existed at 
the time of the declaration of independence iu the Kingdom of Guatemala, having 
been liquidated and recognized in the treasury general of Guatemala, in which fund 
establishments and private parties of Guatemala are interested, the Government of 
Mexico, in order to put a delinite term to these claims, binds itself by the convention 
annexed to this treaty, and in the presence of the statements and data which for this 
case have been considered, to liquidate the part which in said credits corresponds to 
the. Chiapas, so that this department remains exempt from all resiionsibility and claim 
with respect to this matter." In the interview of the 7th of the same month Senor 
Pavon presented the project of special convention, to which allusion has been made 
above, and Articles I and III of which, copied literally, say as follows: 

"1. Mexico shall give to Guatemala ($450,000) cuatrocientos cineuenta mil pesos 
within tlie term of one year, this sum being the part which, in the debt of the King- 
dom of Guatemala, previous to her indepeudence, belongs to Chiapas and Soconusco, 
according to the statements presented, excepting any rectification which, in the 
opinion of the Governmeut of Mexico, might have to be made, to which effect the 
books and other necessary data shall be exhibited to the legation or to commissaries 
which might be appointed for the purpose. 

" 3. In order to facilitate the arrangement to which article 1 refers, by resolving any 
doubt which, iu the liquidation, may present itself, and after the acceptance of the 
convention by the Government of Mexico, a reduction of "20 to 25 per cent, shall be 
made by Guatemala." 

One copy of these acts, signed by both plenipotentiaries, exists iu this ministry, the 
other one iu the otEce of the secretary of foreign aff'airs of Guatemala. If it is con- 
sidered that Senor Pavou could not only act without express instructions from his 
Governmeut, but that he must even have informed it previously of his projects of 
treaty and convention, it can be assured that in 1854 Guatemala recognized openly 
and frankly the dependencie of Chiapas and Soconusco from Mexico ; that for this 
recognition she did not ask territorial or pecuniary compensation, but was contented 
with the condition that she should receive the amount of the debt of both, estimated 
to be .f450,000, and reduced, in order to save difficulties, to .$:?37,500. The negotia- 
tions between Mexico and Gnatemala in regard to the old question having been re- 
opened in 1874, Don Ramon Uriarte, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
tiary of the latter Republic, sent on the 21st of August of said year to my predecessor, 
Senor Lafragua, a note in which he proposed the boundary line which, in his opinion, 
it Avould be proper to fix between the two nations. In that document, though, the 
Guatemalan plenipotentiary already claimed for his country the territory of Soco- 
nusco, and valued the rights of that country upon Chiapas. He declared with regard 
to that part of the Mexican federation as follows : 

"As before everything else a preliminary convention should be made to the effect of deter- 
mininfi the basis upon which the boundary line, should be drawn from the Pacific coast to 
the Northern sea, the undersigned thinks there is no inconvenience for taking as a 
startiny point, with respect to the question of Chiapas, the project discussed in Guatemala 
in 1854, between Senores Pavon and Pareda, that is to say, that Gautemala shall recognize 
the incorporation of said states into the Mexican territory, provided, that from the part of 
Mexico steps be taken to arrange the debt, which the aforesaid province owed to the general 
captaincy of Guatemala." If we consider these propositions, we see that, though they 
were not so conciliatory a^i those made in 1854, they confined themselves, uotwith- 
.standing, to the recovery of Soconusco by Guatemala, and to the payment to be made 
to her of the debt of Chiapas, or, as I have said above, of the sum of $337,500. I 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 161 

beg leave to observe,- by the way, that if the plenipotentiary of Gnatemala in a dis- 
tinct manner offered to resign the rights of his country upon Chiapas, I cannot 
understand why your excellency states in the note I reply to, that your Government 
never had the intention of resigning them, when it agreed upon the convention of 
1877, signed by the same plenipotentiary. I can still less ex[)lain, in presence of the 
antetiedents mentioned, why your excellency affirms with so much assurance in 
another T)art of your note that Guatemala had not given her consent, nor could she 
give it, to the resignation of her rights upon Chiapas and Soconusco. The proposi- 
tions made by Guatemala iu 1854 and 1874, having been shown as tiiey were, the 
moment has arrived to consider which are her pretensions at present, if I am to judge 
as I deem proper from your excellency's note, which I answer herewith. In Article 
1 of the project of treaty, which I am exauiiuiug, it is stipulated that the Republic 
of Guatemala transfers freely and spontaneously to that of Mexico the rights she has, 
or thinks she has, upon the territory of Chiapas, including Soconusco. The second 
one describes, as a definite limit between the two Republics, a line which, drawn as 
it is on the map, leaves on the side of Guatemala, 1st. A considerable portion of Soco- 
nusco ; '2d. Another portion of the state of Chiapas ; 3d. Part of the state of 
Tabasco ; 4th. One-third of the state of Campeche, and 5th. Nearly another third 
of the state of Yucatan. Finally, and as if it had appeared to your excellency that 
you had been too timid, you propose in article 6 that, Mexico should pay to Gaute- 
mala, in consideration of the limits she dcfinilcly acquires, $4,000,000 in cash and currency, 
gold or or silver, and Mexican coin, exempt from export duties. 

In XJresence of These exorbitant pretensions and iu view of the contrast existing 
between them and those shown iu Guatemala in 1854 and 1874, can I believe, though 
making eflbrts to do so, that your excellency's Government has actually a favorable 
inclination to terminate the vexatious boundary question? Could I give all the im- 
portance I would like to give to the friendly assurances which courteously are spread 
over the body of your excellency's note and over the preface of the project of treaty? 
Is it by forming unacceptable propositions that the negotiations are made easy and ac- 
celerated ? And is it by accumulating greater obstacles that the difficulties could 
ever be removed ? I beg leave to observe that Seuores Pavon and Uriarte never 
offered to Mexico the sale of Guatemala's rights upon Chiapas and Soconusco. The 
Gautemalan Government having recognized, if uot the right of those people to annex 
themselves to Mexico, at least the fact of their forming a part of this Republic, it 
only claimed in 1854 the payment of the debt of Chiapas, and in 1874 the same pay- 
ment and the territory of Soconusco. Your excellency, on the contrary, offers the 
sale of the rights which Guatemala thinks she holds upon Chiapas and Soconusco, 
although trying to make an ingenious palliation of the contract which would appear 
as a cession of the right to discuss about these territories. On the other side, if, as 
your excellency says in the explanatory part of your note, the compensation, or the 
onerous cause, in virtue of which from this date forever Guatemala desists from the 
discuHsion of her rights, of what other resignation in favor of Mexico or of what benefit 
are an onerous cause, the retrocession to Guatemala of a large portion of Soconusco 
and the cession of the immense zone belonging to Campeche and Yucatan, which 
comprises from the nineteenth parallel to the real mu-lhern limit of Guatemala? 
And I ask this question with so much more reason as though your excellency, when 
explaining your project of boundary lines, says that it is founded on the actual jioa- 
sessiou. 

I must believe, without giving anything as a proof, that this foundation could be 
invoked with regard to some localities of Soconusco, to which Guatemala has extended 
her authority by invasions ; but as for Campeche and Yucatan your excellency could 
not show me a single title nor a single map made previously to the present, including 
the official one of Guatemala, drawn by Herman An and published in 1875, which marks 
the limit between your Republic and those states at the nineteenth parallel. Mj' Gov- 
ernment is not ignorant of some very small towns and villages, composed even of two 
or three families aud partly of deserters or criminals, having come to fall through slow 
and surreptitious invasions under the jurisdiction of Guatemalan authorities; but 
neither are those towns and villages forming a zone, but a narrow line from south to 
north in what is called the road of El Peten, nor does such abuse constitute a legal 
title. It is true that in our interviews I spoke to your excellency of compensations of 
land ; but I have only referred to those which, in drawing a regular line, might pass 
from one jurisdiction to the other, and I never expressed that my Government would 
consent to give away one-third of the states of Campeche and Yucatan in exchange 
for the state of Chiapas, which also belongs to Mexico. The foregoing analysis of 
the note of the legation and of the project of treaty of limits annexed to it will show 
to your excellency and to any impartial person, first, that never before Guatemala had 
showH pretensions, not only identical, but not even comparable with her actual ones ; 
second, that for their notorious exaggerations they are absolutely inadmissible for my 
Government ; and finally, that they render more and more difficult a settlement of 
difierences between both Governments. 

H. Ex. 154 11 



162 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



If yoiirexcellenoy'sGoveiiiment lixesatoiice its policy in tliiyqnestion ; if, invoking 
the antecefk'uts I have quoted, it comes to iinderslaiid to what extt ut it is bonud by 
them; if, examiniiin- aud deciding the matter on a practical ground, it gives to your 
excellency proper instructions to enter into an acceptable arrangement, or if it has 
already communicated them to you, then luy Government is disposed to hear the new 
propositions wliich your excellency might ]iresent. Before ending this, Mr. Minister, 
I have to tahe i'or tlie iutnre a precaution wliich I consider indispensable. As at the 
time of the renewal of the convention of the 7th of December, 1877, being negotiated, 
your exeellenc.\'s Government appliid at tliat of Washington for its mediation ; as, 
while the project of treaty ])resented by your excellency to this office on tlie 14th of 
January last is jiending from its decision, Renor Montnfar, envoy extraordinary and 
ministeV plenii)oteutiary of Guatemala in Washington, repeatedly urges our minister 
in the United States of America to arrange with him, submitting them to an arbitra- 
tion, the difficulties existing between Mexico and Guatemala ; and as simultaijeonsly, 
according to notes of Mr. Logan, American minister in Guatemala, which were i)rinted 
lately at Washington, your excellency's Government has contrived to make a cession 
of Soconnsco to some American power, or in its default, to some European one, rather 
than to consent to its continuing to belong to Mexico, I have no more guarantee now 
than before to hope that our negotiations may be frnctuous. I would, therefore, 
thank your excellency for telling me to what extent I ought to hope that a new^ re- 
course of your Government's diplomacy will not come to interrupt them. 

Wishing, Mr. Minister, that we may succeed to make a jirompt and satisfactory ar- 
rangement, which the peace and prosperity of both Eepublics demand, I have the 
pleasure of renewing to your excellency the assurance of my most distinguished con- 
sideration. 

IGNACIO MARISCAL. 

To his excellency Don Manuel Herrera, junior, 

Envoij Extraordinary and Minister Flenipottntiari) of the RepuMic of Gvuttmala. 



The foregoing is a copy. 
Mexico, Jmie 7, 1882. 



Compared with its original. 



JOSE FERNANDEZ, 

Under-Secretary. 

P. A. MAGANA. 



YU.— NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND MEXICO CARRIED ON 
AT WASHINGTON FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY QUES- 
TION. 

No. 56. 

Mr. Montnfar to Mr. Frelinglmysen. 
[Translation. — Extract. ] 

Legation of Guatemala, 
Washington, April 14, 1882. (Received April 15.) 

Mr. Secretary : I have the honor to inform your excellency that to- 
day I have received an oflicial communication from Mr. Herrera, minis- 
ter of Guatemala in Mexico. 

This conimunication is dated the 29th of March. 

Mr. Herrera tells me that his ])roposals for treaties had not beew ad- 
mitted up to that day, and that the Government of Guatemala calls 
him. ^i-^ 

He says that he does not believe it advantageous to leave Mexico, 
and he sends to Guatemala the secretary of legation to give the expla- 
nation. 

He remains, therefore, certain that there does not exist any hope of 
settlement between Guatemala and Mexico. 

****** * OTHMta.'CTJ 

The present occasion affords me the pleasure of repeating that I am, 

&c., y 

LOEENZO MONTUFAR. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 163 

Ko. 57. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen toMr. Montufar, 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Department op State, 

Washington, June 5, 1882. 

Sir: Eeferriog to yonr several commnnicatioiis respecting the differ- 
ences between Guatemala and Mexico I have now tlie honor to state for 
your information the position of the question so far as the United States 
have taken part in it. 

On the loth of June last Mr. Ubico informed Mr. Blaine that all peace- 
ful measures of conciliation ap])eared to be exhausted, and appealed on 
behalf of his Government to the United States as the natural protector 
of the Central American territory. Thereupon Mr. Blaine, on the 16th 
of June, instructed Mr. Morgan, the minister of the United States in 
Mexico, to offer to Mexico the good offices of the United States, and in- 
formed Mr. Ubico that he had done so. 

Mr. Morgan complied with this instruction, and made a formal tender 
of the good offices of the United States as mediator. 
V Subsequently Mr. Morgan, without further instructions from this De- 
partment, but with its acquiescence and in full accord with the sugges- 
tions, written and verbal, of the minister for Guatemala, proposed 
verbally to Mr. Mariscal that the differences between Guatemala and 
Mexico should be submitted to the decision of the President of the 
United States as arbitrator. 

Mr. Morgan's course in this respect was approved, and he was further 
instructed by Mr. Blaine as follows, on the 28th of ISTovember last: 

If the Government of Mexico should be disposed to accept an arbitration limited 
in its point of settlement, as Mr. Herrera, the Guatemalan minister, indicated would 
be acceptable to his Government, you will ask the assurance of the Mexican Govern- 
ment that, pending the discussion necessary to perfect such an arrangemeut, all hos- 
tile demonstrations should be avoided, and, if jjossible, that the Mexican troops 
should be withdrawn from the immediate vicinity of the disputed boundary. But 
this latter requesb yoii will not insist upon if it should be an obstacle to obtaining 
the consent of Mexico to a limited arbitration. 

Should the Mexican Government, however, decide that it was not consistent with 
its views to accept a friendly intervention in the differences between itself and Gua- 
temala, you will inform the secretary for foreign affiiirs that you accept this decision 
as undoubtedly within the right of Mexico to make. You will express the very deep 
and sincere regret which this Government will feel if it shall lind the powerful re- 
public of Mexico unwilling to join the Govcrunjeut of the United States in maintain- 
ing and establishing the principle of friendly arbitration for international differences 
on the continent of America. Mexico and the United States, acting in cordial har- 
mony, can induce all the other independent Governments of North and South America 
to aid in fixing this policy of peace for all the future disputes between the nations of 
the western hemisphere. And it would be a marked and impressive precedent if, in 
a dispute with a weaker neighbor, Mexico should frankly consent to a friendly arbi- 
tration of all existing differences. 

On the 31st day of December last Mr. Morgan, under further instruc- 
tions, made a formal tender to the Mexican Government of the good 
offices of the President of the United States, and of his services as 
arbitrator in the following language : 

In obedience, therefore, to the instructions contained in the dispatch which I have 
just read to you, I formally suggest to the Mexican Government, through your excel- 
lency — 

1. That all the differences now unhappily existing between Mexico and Guatemala 
be submitted to arbitration. 

2. That pending this arbitration the troops of Mexico be withdrawn from the im- 
mediate neighborhood of the Guatemalan frontier. 



164 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

3. I inform you that the President of the United States is willing to accept th« 
position of arbitrator between the two Governments. 

4. I respectfully ask au eaily decision of your excellency's Government upon these 
suggestions. 

On the 20th of March last Mr. Mariscal couumiiiicated to Mr. Morgan 
the answer of tlie Mexican Government, in hinguage of which I inclose 
a copy in the Spanish text, and of which the following is a translation: 

Coming down to the propositions which you submitted to me, I have been instructed 
by the President to answer in the Ibllowing terms : 

As respects the lirst , I mnst observe that the principal controversy which has excited 
Guatemala is the one which relates to the riyht by which Mexico holds tlie State of 
Chiapns, as one of the members of the Federal Union, including the territory of Soco- 
nusco, which forms a part thtreof, but, afs has been explained on a former occasion, 
the Mexican Government finds itself in the absolute impossibility of discussing or of 
submitting the rights of the nation to this jiortion of her territoiy to any judgment. 
For the same reason it is not possible to submit all the differences which exist between 
the two Governments to arbitration, as you propose should be done. Besides, if the 
Guatemalan Government will agree to expressly exclude the one which relates to 
Chiapas and Soconusco, the Mexican Government will not lind it inconvenient to 
submit to a determinate arbitration, which would be limited to the question of bound- 
ary, which then surged between the two countries. 

I say "which then surged," because the pretensions of Guatemala upon the whole 5r 
a portmn of tiuat Mexican State frankly eliminated (from the discussion?), the ques- 
tions which have scarcely been mentioned with reference to the boundary of Soco- 
nusco would be from that time easily arranged, without the necessity of appealing to 
an aibitrator. 

The aforesaid pretensions of acquiring in whole or in part tht territory to which I 
refer, or of obtaining a compensation therefor, whether the same has been expressly 
stipulated, or whether in a disguised forn), has been, and is, the only difliculty between 
the two Governments. If it should disappear by reason of a sensible abandonment, 
which the Guatemalan Government would make of such unfounded aspirations, there 
would probably be no necessity for an arbitration to decide any point of difference 
upon the qiu'stion of houndary (between the two countries), besides removing the 
great reason for disagreement which up to now has dividedus. 

The second proposition, to the effect that the Mexican forces be withdrawn from the 
frontier, pending the arbitration, cannot be decided upon at the present moment; to 
maintain our forces upon onr territory, and near the lino provisionally recognized by 
Guatemala, will depend upon the circumstances arising clnring the arbitration, if an 
arbitrator l)e agn ed upon, or even if an agreement should be concluded to arbitrate. 

The object of maintaining a personal tbrce on the frontier alluded to, whose numbers 

' are far from alarming, is to prevent the incursionsof armed Guatemalans, from which 

our frontier poi)ulation has suffered, because of the absence ordinarily of a Mexican 

soldier there. This Government has never in any way pretended to menace Guatemala 

with an invasion with these troops, and no one has thought of such a thing. 

Your third prtq^osition consists in the foruuil offer th;it the President of the United 
States shall be the arbitrator betweeu'the two Governments of Mexico and Guatemala. 

Within the limitations expressed, that is to say, not including in the arbitration 
the right which Mexico has to the whole of the territory which to-day comprises the 
State of Chiapas, the Government of Mexico is disposed to admit and will admit with 
pleasure the arl>itratu)n of the President of the United States, for the purpose of de- 
ciding any question which may require the employment of such a method and which 
is susceptible of being decided by it in determining the boundary of hoth nations. 

Notwithstanding, we cannot at the present time know if any such questions will 
arise, as this (juestiou has not up to date been discussed by Guatemala, except one 
which relates to its houndary with ourcountry, and this always under the precautions 
and from the second point of view which has been above referred to. 

I informed yon of this proposition verbally. Since commnnicating 
it to you 1 learn through several notes from you, and more especially 
your notes of the 2d and 28th of May last, that direct negotiations for 
arbitration are takiug place between you and Mr. Eomero. In your 
note of the 2d you communicated to me for my information a proposi- 
tion from Mr. Komero to you to submit the question of boundary to the 
arbitration of the President of the United States, and your proposed 
amendment of the second article. In your note of the 28th you inform 
me that there is a probability that the proposal of Mr. Romero will be 
withdrawn and that war will ensue. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 



165 



In reply I am instructed by the President to say that he would see a 
state of war on the continent of ISTorth America between two republics 
of common origin and language with profound solicitude and regret. 
No reasonable efforts on the part of this Government as a neutral friend 
to both will be spared to prevent it. 

It appears that the draft for a convention submitted to you by Mr. 
Eomero contained ten articles, and that you accepted all except the 
second article. You proposed to substitute your own draft for Article 
2. The difference between you and Mr. Romero is, then, reduced to 
this article, and appears to be as follows : 



Mr. Romero's Draft. 

2cl. Presidente de los Estados Uuidos 
designar^ les li mites eutre el Estado de 
Chiapas parte integraute de la (Joufeder- 
acion Mexicana y la Republica de Guate 
mala. 



Mr. Montufar's Draft. 

2d. El Presidente de los Estados Unidos 
designar^ la linea eutre Chiapas y Guate- 
mala. 



I thought it my duty informally and unofficially to endeavor to ascer- 
tain the causes of the difference. 1 am told by Mr. Komero|hat Mexico 
has for years regarded, and still regards, the State of Chiapas as an in- 
tegral part of the federal republic of Mexico, in the same sense as the 
State of ISTew York is an integral part of this republic, and that he can- 
not give his assent to any scheme of arbitration which does not exclude 
the idea of submitting that question to arbitration. He adds that he has 
so informed you ; that he told you that in laying the projet before you 
he did it without authority from his Government, but that he thinks it 
will be acquiesced in by his Government, if accepted by yours. 

The interest which the President takes in the prosperity of Guatemala 
and the confidence reposed by you and your Government in the United 
States must be my excuse for these unauthorized inquiries of Mr. Ro- 
mero. 

While offering this personal explanation, I beg leave to renew the 
official assurance that the President will gladly lend his good offices to 
bring about a solution of this unfortunate question if a basis can be 
found that is acceptable to both Guatemala and Mexico. , 
Accept, «&c., 

FRED'K T. FRELmGHUYSEN. 



]S"o. 58. 
Mr. Montufar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Translation.] 

Legation of Guatemala, 
17 West Forty-Second S i reet, New York, 

June 9, 1882. (Received June 12.) 

Mr. Secretary: It was only to day that I had the honor to receive 
your valued note of the 5th. 

I once more give your excellency most sincere thanks for your kind 
mediation. 

v' Your excellency comprehends very well the sentiments of the Presi- 
dent of Guatemala. Tbey explain how great to my Government is the 
significance of a word from your excellency. 



16G BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 

By the steamer from Colon, which is due in ISTew York the 14th in- 
stant, I will recei\e instructions from my Government. 

Immediately I will proceed to Washington in order to express to 
your excellencj^ thanks personally, and to procure a point of coinci- 
dence between Senor liomero and myself, to the end that the question 
may be decided in the office of the Secretary of State of the United 
States. / 

This welcome opportunityaffords me the honorof repeating that lam, 
&c., 

LORENZO MONTFUAR. 



No. 59. 

Mr. Montfuar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Translation. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Legation of Guatemala, 
Washington, June 15, 1882. (Received June 15.) 

Sir : The communication of your excellency of the 5th instant, which 
I had the honor to receive in New York, deserves my highest attention 
and respect. 

In it your excellency presents to me a parallel between the proposi- 
tion designated by Senor Romero as No. 2 and that which I jiresent in 
substitution. 

Your excellency tells me that Seiior Komero considers that Chiapas, 
as a State, belongs to Mexico in like maLuer as New York belongs to 
the United States. 

Sefior Romero will permit me to answer in this manner: 

New York was one of the thirteen colonies which became independ- 
ent of England, and no nation in the world has ever alleged that she 
does not belong to the United States. 

Chiapas belonged to Guatemala for three hundred years. 
• In the year 1824 she was declared a ])art of the Mexican Republic in 
virtue of an illegal plebiscite, inasmuch as the votes were not taken be- 
fore two comnn'ssioners, one of Mexico and the other of Gnatemala, as 
was agreed upon, but only before the commissioner of Mexico, a Mexi- 
can force being at the time imposed on the frontier. 

Soconusco belonged to Guatemala. 

A treaty between Mexico and Guatemala arranged, in 1829, that 
neither the forces of Mexico nor of Gnatemala shall enter Soconusco 
until a treaty toucthing boundaries shall decide the questions. 

In the year 1842 the Mexican General Santa Anna, breaking that 
treaty, entered Soconusco and annexed it to JNlexico. 

Here is the title by which Mexico possesses Soconusco. 

Very different is the title by which the United States holds the State 
of New York. 

After the outrage of Santa Ana, Mexfco declared that Chiapas and 
Soconusco should form a State of the federation, and therefore does 
not desire that it shall be submitted to arbitration to ascertain the 
right or title by which the Mexicans possess Soconusco. 

This is to sanction the law of conquest. 

Nothing is easier to a nation relatively strong than to take territory 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 167 

from one that is weak ; and uothini? is more easy, after such territory 
has been taken, than to say iu a law that that territory constitutes part 
of the nation which has taken it, and consequently not to reduce the 
question to arbitration. 

The theories of Mexico are essentially doctrines which sanctify in the 
New World the law of force and the law of , conquest. 

Nevertheless, it is necessary to terminate this disagreeable and mourn- 
ful qaestion, and nothing will be more gratifying to Gnatemala than to 
terminate it under the influence of a mediator of a common friend — the 
United States. 

Would that the arbitration be not limited to this line, but lay down 
the entire divisional line between the Mexican States and the republic 
of Gruatemala, even although for this location two or three years more 
would be necessary. 

In November I had the honor to say to Mr. Blaine, and afterwards I 
had the honor to repeat to your excellency that Gnatemala places the 
matter in the hands of the Government of the United States. In this 
view your excellency may dictate the bases of the arbitration. 

Please settle with Senor Komero such bases, under the full confidence 
that I will subscribe to whatever you will settle. ,^, 
I am, &c., 

LORENZO MONTUFAR. 



No. 60. 
3fr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montufar. 

[Published heretofore iu Foreiftu Relations.] 

Depae^tment of State, 

Washington, June 27, 1882. 

Sir : The historical statements in your letter of the loth of June, in 
reply to mine of the 5th of June, in relation to the efforts of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States to bring about a good understanding be- 
tween Guatemala and Mexico, toucliiug the boundary disi)ute between 
them, have been read with much interest. I permit myself to say, how- 
ever, that they scarcely seem to touch the only questions which Mr. 
Mariscal's observations left open for the President's consideration. 

If Mexico were willing to accept the terms and conditions of arbitra- 
tion offered by you on behalf of Guatemala, the President would be 
much pleased to act as the umpire between the two Governments. 

On the other hand, if Guatemala is willing to accept the terms and 
conditions named by Mr. Romero, and desires that the President should 
act as such umi)ire, the President is willing to do so. 

But if the parties desire the President in any contingency to act as 
um])ire, it is manifestly im})roper for him to consider and express an 
opinion in advance in favor of either party upon the merits of the case, 
or upon the scope of the subject to be submitted. 

It will therefore be perceived that without a more definite statement 
as to the wishes of your Government on the latter point, the President 
is unable to act with a reasonable certainty that he is carrying out those 
wishes. ' 

Accept, &c., . 

FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN. 



168 I OUXDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. Gl. 
Mr. Romero to Mr. FreUntjImysen. 

[Memorantluni. ] 

* 

Legation of Mexico, 

Washington, July 20, 1882. 

The province of Cliiapas, including- its county of Soconusco, was, in 
the beginning of this century, subject to the Spanish captain-general- 
ship of Guatenial;!, which embraced, besides Chiapas, the present five 
Ceiitral American Ivepublics. 

On the 3d of Sei)teml»er, 1821, Chi;i])as proclaimed her independence 
from S])ain and her annexatiou to Mexico. On Se])tember 15, 1821 
Guatemala proclaimed her indei)endence, and on September 20, 1821 
Chia])a dechired her absolute se])aration from Guatemala. 

On the 2Gth of May, 1821, the Mexican Congress issued a decree, de 
daring that Chiapas was free to annex herself to Mexico or Guatemala 
and on Sei»tember 12, i824, the majority of the inhabitants of Chiapas 
ratified its final incorporation to Mexico, and in the iirst Mexican con 
stitution, of October 4, 1824, Chiapas was mentioned as apart of the 
Mexican Kejjublic, and has been so without interrui)tion. 

Soconusco, a county of the state of Chiapas, was also annexed to 
Mexico, but for some time remained in a quasi independent condition 
until 1842, when it again became and has ever since remained a portion 
of Chiai)as and therefore of Mexico. 

Guatemala (;laimed to the United States Government in 1881 that 
Chiapas and Soconusco, supposing them to be two difterent states, were 
legitimately a. i)ortion of her territory, and that Mexico had seized upon 
them and taken tliem forcibly by conquest, and asked the arbitration 
of the United States for the pnrjtose of adjusting that question. 

The late Secretary of State offered to Mexico the arbitration of the 
United States in said question, but the Mexican Government could not 
accept it. because it cannot admit that there exists any doubt as to, 
and much less submit to arbitration, her riglit to consider Chiapas with 
the county of Soconusco, as one state of the Mexican union, just as 
the United States Government could not admit of any doubt and nmch 
less of any arbitration as to their right to consider Texas and Calitbruia 
states of this Union, should this right be contended, for instance, by 
Mexico. 

The Mexican minister at this ca])ital, acting without instructions or 
authority from his Government, and as a personal oi)inion of his own, 
wrote, at the earnest solicitation of the Guatenuilan minister in Washing- 
ton, some bases, which Mr. Romero thought might be acceptable to the 
Mexican Gorernn)ent for the ])uij)ose of settling the boundary question 
under the arbitration of the President of the United States. The main 
feature of su(;h bases was that Mr. President Arthur should establish, 
the boundary line between the state of Chiapas and its county of Soco- 
nusco as belonging to INlexico and the Republic of Guatemala, in so far 
as the GuatennUan territory borders on said state of Chiapas. 

The Gnatenialan minister did not accept these proposals, because they 
settled in fa\-or of Mexi<;o the question of Chiapas and Soconusco, and 
therefore the Mexican Government has not decided anything about it. 

The proposal was limited to the state of Chiapas, because this state 



BOUNPARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 16& 

embraces the disputed territory, and because the marking of the line 
from the Pacific to the Atlantic would be quite an undertaking, requir- 
ing considerable longer time. 

To better illustrate the present condition of this question, the state of 
Chiapas is marked in the inclosed map in blue, its county of SoconuscO' 
in red, and Guatemala in green. 



1^0. 62. 

Mr. Montufar to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Legation of Guatemala, 

Washington, July 21, 1882. 

Mr. Minister: I have the honor to inform your excellency that the 
President of the republic of Guatemala, who is now in this capital, has 
instructed me personally, and in the most special manner, to address 
myself to your exceleucy in the terms which I am about to set forth with 
reference to the boundary question pending between Guatemala and 
Mexico. 

My Government, in the interest of harmony and of the good relation- 
shij) which should be maintained between neighboring countries, de- 
sires to . avoid all the difficulties which might place themselves in the 
way of a speedy and amicable solution. v These difficulties have con- 
sisted hitherto in the discussion of the rights of both republics to the 
territory of Chiapas, including Soconusco. Therefore the President 
desires that this point may be no obstacle in arriving at an end of the 
business, and, believing that nothing would be so opportune as to have 
the United States of America, a power friendlj^ to the two countries, 
which gives them all the guarantees of impartiality and justice, and with 
respect to which there should be good reason to believe, too, that it i)os- 
sesses the unlimited confidence of both, consent to take upon itself to 
put an end to this controversy. He asks, through me, that the United 
States, by its mediation and in virtue of an arbitration, will do the re- 
public of Guatemala the inestimable service of giving a decision which 
shall fix the dividing boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico, in the 
sense above set forth. 

In order to attain this result, the President of Guatemala eliminates 
the difficulty touching Chiapas and Soconusco, which is the obstacle 
hitherto set i\p on behalf of Mexico, and consequently the boundaries 
which it pertains to the arbitrator to fix, are those between Chiapas and 
the republic of Guatemala throughout their proper extent. 

The President of Guatemala expresses to your excellency, through 
me, his desire that his Excellency the President of the United States of 
America will consent to accept the position of arbitrjitor in order to 
define this question within the proposed terms. It would be very grati- 
fying to him to know if the President will be pleased to accept this 
charge on this basis, so that he may thereupon inform the Government 
of Mexico of the request which he has thus made to the Government of 
this republic (United States), and to learn if it (Mexico) accepts, for its 
part, the suggestion and the arbitration proposed by Guatemala. 

In case of its acceptance (by Mexico), and the remaining details there- 



170 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATi^MALA. 

upon being decided, tbe matter will forthwith be submitted to his ex- 
cellency's decision ; and in the remote contingency of its not being ac- 
cepted, Guatemala will have thus taken a step which unequiv^ocally 
demonstrates the sincerity of its intention to terminate this question, 
even though imposing upon itself a costly sacrifice. 

I take, therefore, the liberty of troubling your excellency", begging you 
to be pleased to honor me with a response which will show whether his 
Excellency the President of the United States of America will consent 
to accept the nomination which the republic of Guatemala offers to him 
for this delicate charge. If the response be favorable, as I am led to 
believe it will be, by tlie expressions which his Excellency the President, 
and your excellency likewise, have had the goodness to make to the 
chief of the nation wiiich I repiesent, and to myself, it will be duly an- 
nounced on behalf of Guatemala to Mexico, to the end that if it (Mex- 
ico) accepts and adheres to the suggestion, the matter may forthwith 
remain subject to the enlightened decision of his Excellency the Presi- 
dent of this republic. 

I have much pleasure in stating to your excellency that the Govern- 
ment of the republic of Guatemala will l)e profoundly grateful to that 
of the United States of America for the acts of noteworthy deference 
which its acceptance will imply. 

This gratifying opportunity affords me the honor of assuring you once 
more that I am your excellency's very faithful and respectful servant. 

LOKENZO MONTUFAK. 



Ko. 03. 
Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Translation.] 

Legation of Mexico, 
^Y((shington, July 22, 1882. (Received July 22.) 

Mr. Secretary : I have the honor to inform you, referring to the 
conversations which we have recently had with respect to the boundary 
question now ])ending between Mexico aiul Guatemala that, at the in- 
stance of Mr. Montufar, the representative of Guatemala at this cap- 
ital, I made inquiry on the 25th of May last, of the Government of 
Mexico, as to whether it desired that the said question should be dis- 
cussed with the Guatemalan minister at Washington. 

The department of foreign relations of Mexico answered me the next 
day as follows : 

It is not deeiried proper that yon slionld treat wirli Mr. Montufar wliile tbe ques- 
tion is being discussed bere with Mr. Herrera, and wbilc the present circumstances 
continue to exist. 

The secretary of foreign relations of Mexico wrote to me in explana- 
tion of the sense of this "telegram, under the date of June 10, 1882, as 
follows : 

This department addressed tbe aforesaid telejj;ram to you because Mr. Herrera had 
assured it tliat President Barrios had sent instructions to Mr. Montufar not to enter 
into any negotiations with you in relation to our ditilicnl ties with Guatemala, and be- 
cause it was not impossible that Mr. Montufar had so informed you. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 171 

The secretary of foreign relatioDS of Mexico, in a note bearing date of 
the 1st instant, referring to the desire expressed by Mr. Montufar to 
discuss said question at this capital, wrote to me as follows : 

In reply I Lave to inform you that until the Government of Guatemala shall have 
notified that of Mexico officially/thiough Mr. Herreia, that Mr. Montufar is authorized 
to negotiate, the overtures of the representative of Guatemala in the United States, 
whatever they may be, cannot be taken into consideration. 

I think it proper for me to inform you in reference to this matter that 
the President of Guatemala had fully authorized Mr. Herrera, minister 
of Guatemala'in Mexico, to treat concerning the boundary question with 
the Mexican Government. 



I avail, &c., 



M. EOMEEO. 



No. 64. 
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Montufar. 
[Printed heretofore in Foreign Eelations. ] 

Department of State, 

Washington, July 24, 1882. 

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 21st instant, in 
which, with reference to the questions heretofore discussed between 
Guatemala and Mexico concerning the boundaries between them, you 
state that the President of Guatemala, being in this capital, has in- 
structed you to ax>ply, through me, for the exercise of the good offices 
of this Government in bringing about a conclusion of the difficulty 
between the two countries within the terms expressed in your letter. 

,.As I understand those terms, the Government of Guatemala, in the 
interest of harmony, removes altogether its claim advanced to the pos- 
session of Chiapas, includiug Saconusco, and desires that the President 
of the United States will signify his assent to the proposal of Guatemala 
that he shall act as arbitrator in tracing the boundary line between 
Guatemala on the one hand and the State of Chiapas — including, as 
stated, Soconusco — on the other, and not elsewhere. 

Understanding the question thus, the President directs me to say that 
if an agreement be reached between Guatemala and Mexico, tendering 
to him the post of arbitrator for the determination of the boundary line, 
on bases of submission, to be specified in such agreement, he will have 
great pleasure in accepting the high trust proposed. 

Your note leads me to believe that, with the announced elimination 
of the question of territorial right to the disputed district, and the offer 
to narrow the scoi)e of the arbitration to the physical determination of 
a boundary line, the negotiation between yourself and Mr. Romero has 
progressed so far toward a pacific and harmonious solution that the re- 
maining details of a settlement will ofter no difficulty. / 
Accept, &c., 

FKED'K T. FEELINGHUYSEK. 



172 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA 

Tin.— FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY QUESTION THROUGH 
THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

No. 65. 
Mr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Trauslatiou. — Published heretofore iu Foreign Relations.] 

LEaATiON OF Mexico in the United States, 
XcAc York, Augttst 14, 1882. (Received August 16.) 

Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to inform you that on the 12th 
instant, in this city, I signed, in my capacity as the representative of 
Mexico, together with the representatives of Guatemala, viz, General 
J. Rnfino Barrios, I*resident of that Republic, Hon. Manuel Herrera, jr., 
minister of Guatemala in Mexico, and Hon. Fernando Cruz, formerly 
minister of foreign relations of Guatemala, a convention containing the 
stipulations which are to serve as the basis of the final treaty for the 
settlement of the boundary question between the two countries, which 
is to be signed at the city of Mexico within six months from that date. 

The boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala has thus been 
amicabl}^ settled. 

In accordance with this basis it may happen that both the contract- 
ing parties will have recourse to the President of the United States, 
requesting him to act as arbitrator on those points with respect to 
which they may be unable to agree. 
I avail, «&c., 

M. ROMERO. 



No. m. 

Mr. Davis to Mr. Romero. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 23, 1882. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
14th instant, by which you inform me that on the 12th instant, in New 
York, a convention w^as signed by yourself and the official representa- 
tive of Guatemala, which contains the stijiulations whereon to base a 
final treaty for the settlement of the boundary question betw^een Mex- 
ico and Guatemala, to be signed at the City of Mexico within six mouths 
from that date. 

It is a matter of congratulation to the Government and people of the 
United States that a divergence between two neighboring (countries has 
by these amicable means been put in the w^ay of a just settlement, hon- 
orable alike to both. 

In resi»ect to your further statement that under the terms of adjust- 
ment it may hap]>en that both the contracting ])arties will have recourse 
to the Rresident of the United States requesting him to act as arbitra- 
tor on those points with respect to which they may be unable to agree, 
I may observe that on the 21st of Jul}' last Senor Montiifar, then the 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 173 

envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Guatemala at this 
capital, addressed this Department, inquiring- whether, in the event of 
an agreement between his Government and that of Mexico looking to 
the tender of the position of arbitrator between the two countries to the 
President, the trust would be accepted ; and that on the 24th of July 
Mr. Frelinghnysen replied to Seiior Moiitufar that "if an agreement be 
reached between Guatemala and Mexico, tendering to the President 
the post of arbitrator for the determination of the boundary liue, on 
bases ot submission to be specified in such agreement, he will have 
great pleasure in accepting the high trust proposed." 

Expressing personally the pleasure it has afforded me to learn from 
you that the boundary question between Mexico and Guatemala has 
been thus amicably settled, 
I avail, &c., 

JOHN DAVIS, 
Acting Secretary. 



No. 67. 
3fr. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Translation. — Published heretofore in Foreign Relations.] 

Legation of Mexico in the United States, 
Washingto7i^ September 27, 1882. (Received September 28.) 
Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to inform you that I have received 
a telegram from the secretary of foreign relations of the United States 
of Mexico informing me that the final boundary treaty between Mexico 
and Guatemala, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has this day been signed 
at the City of Mexico, in accordance with the preliminaries which were 
signed at New York by me, as the representative of Mexico, and by 
General Barrios and others, as the representatives of Guatemala, on 
the 12th of August last, to which I referred in the note which I had the 
honor to address to you under date of August 14. 

In apprising you of the amicable and satisfactory termination of a 
grave question which had been pending for many years between two 
American Republics, and which might have been attended with unfor- 
tunate consequences to both of them, I think it proper for me to send 
you, for your information, a copy of the preliminaries signed at New 
York on the 12th of August last. 
I avail, &c., 

M. ROMERO. 



[Tnclosare. — Translation.! 

On the part of the United States of Mexico, Mr. Matias Romero, envoy extraordi- 
nary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of Mexico at Washington j 
being duly authorized by his Government to treat with the representatives of Guate- 
mala; and on the part of the Republic of Guatemala, General J. Rufino Barrios, con- 
stitutional President of the Republic of Guatemala, being fully authorized by the 
Guatemalan National Assembly, by a decree bearing date of April twenty-eight, one 
thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, to settle the boundary question pending with 
Mexico; Mr. Manuel Herrera, jr., envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
of Guatemala near the Mexican Government, and Mr. Fernando Cruz, formerly min- 
ister of foreign relations of the Republic of Guatemala, the associate of General J. 
Rufino Barrios in the discharge of the duties of the aforesaid settlement, having met 



174 BOl.NDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

in the city of New York on the fourteenth day of August, one thousand eiyht hun- 
dred and eighty-two, dechired that the Government of Mexico and that of Guatemala, 
desiring to teri'ninate amicably the difficulties which had existed between the two 
Republics, and with a view to establishing a solid basis for the fraternal relations 
which were thenceforth to unite them, agreed upon the following articles, as prelim- 
inary to a final treaty concerning boundaries on that portion of their frontier which 
compromises the state of Chia|)as: 

Article I. 

The Republic of Guatemala abandons the discussion which it has maintained rela- 
tive to its right to the territory of the state of Chiapas and its department of Soco- 
nusco. 

Article II. 

The final treaty relative to the boundary between Mexico and Guatemala shall be 
concluded on the" basis that Chiapas and Soconusco are to be considered as integral 
parts of the United States of Mexico. 

Article III. 

The Republic of Guatemala, being satisfied with Mexico's appreciation of the course 
pursued by her, and with the recognition that the lofty purposes which have inspired 
the arrangements made in the foregoing articles are worthy and honorable, will re- 
quire no pecuniary indemnity or other compeusatiou on account of the preceding stip- 
ulations. 

Article IV. 

In the event of the two contracting parties not being able to agree with respect to 
the fixing of the boundary, either in whole or in part, between the state of Chiapas 
and its department of Soconusco, on the part of Mexico on the one hand, and on that 
of the Republic of Guatemala on the other, or in case the commissioners who shall be 
appointed by each Government to draw, conjointly, the dividing line, shall difter on 
any point or points relative to such drawing, and in case it shall be necessary to ap- 
point an arbitrator to settle such difierences as may arise ou this account, both Gov- 
ernments agree to do so, and to request the President of the United States of America 
to act as such arbitrator. 

Article V. 

Actual possession shall serve as a basis in the drawing of the dividing line. This, 
however, sLall not prevent both parties from abandoning this basis by common con- 
sent, for the purpose of following natural lines, or for any other reason, and in such 
case the system of mutual compensations shall be adopted. 

Until the dividing line shall have been drawn each contracting party shall respect 
the actual possession of the other. 

Article VI. 

The Government of the United States of Mexico and that of Guatemala pledge 
themselves to sign the final bouudar • treaty, in the city of Mexico, ou the basis con- 
tained in this convention, within six months, reckoned from this date, at the latest. 

In testimony whereof we sign this convention in duplicate, no ratification thereof 
being necessary, inasmuch as it merely establishes a basis for the final boundary treaty, 
that treaty being the one to be submitted to both Governments for their approval, 
according to the constitutions of the two countries. 

M. ROMERO. 

J. RUFINO BARRIOS. 

MANUEL HERRERA, Jr. 

F. CRUZ. 

Washington, Sepiemlcr ^Qth, 1882. 

A copy. 

CAYETANO ROMERO, 

Sec. ad interim. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 175 

No. 68. 

Mr. Davis to Mr. Romero. 
[Published heretofore in Foreign Eelations.] 

Dbpautment of State, 
Washington, October 2, 1882. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
27th ultimo, stating that you had been informed by telegraph by your 
Government of the signature on that day of the treaty defining the 
boundary between Mexico and Guatemala, from the Atlantic to the Pa- 
cific. You also do me the favor to furnish a copy of the convention. 

In reply, I have the honor to state that the infbrmatiou thus commu- 
nicated is, in the highest degree, acceptable. If the instrument, as con- 
cluded, shoukl go into effect it will put to rest a controversy dangerous 
to the peace aud welfiire of two neighboring republics, in whose pros- 
perity and happiness the United States cannot fail to take a lively in- 
terest. 

I avail. &c., 

JOHN DAVIS, 
Acting Secretary. 



No. 69. 



Mr. Cruz to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Published heretofore in Foreign Eelations.] 

San Francisco, Cal., 
October 14, 1882. (Received October 25.) 

Sir : In pursuance of instructions from his excellency the President 
of the republic of Guatemala, I have the honor to address your excel- 
lency, for the purpose of informing you that, as his excellency told 
your excellency he intended to do, he addressed the Government of the 
United States of Mexico, in order to bring about a settlement of the 
boundary question, which was pending with Guatemala, and in order 
to stipulate that it should be decided by the arbitration of his Excellency 
the President of the United States of America. 

A frank and friendly understanding having been reached with the 
representatives of the Mexican Eepublic at Washington, the preliminary 
basis of a treaty was signed at New York on the 12th of August last. 
According to said basis, the dividing line between the republic of Guate- 
mala aud that of Mexico will be drawn, the province of Chiapas and its 
department of Soconusco being considered as an integral part of the 
territory of the United States of Mexico. According to the same basis, 
when the line is drawn, actual possession is to be respected, and if the 
two Governments cannot agree, a commission will be appointed to draw 
it; aud according to said basis, in case of a disagreement, recourse will 
be had to the Government of the United States of America, in order that 
his Elxcellency the President may decide it in the capacity of arbitrator, 
without appeal. 

In the preliminary convention it was also stipulated that, within six 
months from the date on which it was signed, the final boundary treaty 
should be signed in the city of Mexico, and the minister of Guatemala 



176 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

in that republic has already sent telegrams stating that the final treaty 
has now been signed. 

His excellency General Barrios was awaiting this information, in order 
to communicate ic to your excellency's Government, but not having as 
yet received it, and having made all the preparations to return to this 
country, he has deemed it his duty to transmit this information concern- 
ing all that has taken place. On his arrival at Guatemala, and when the 
treaty shall have been received, the department of foreign relations will 
send your excellency a copy thereof, and likewise of the preliminary 
basis decided upon at New York. 

The President entertains the pleasing hope that the matter will be 
satisfactorily settled, and bethinks that it will perhaps be unnecessary 
to trouble his excellency tbe President of the United States of America 
to act as arbitrator in the case. He nevertheless trusts that if it shall 
be necessary to have recourse to him, according to the stipulations of the 
treaty, he will be pleased, as he promised, to do the two countries the 
great favor of settling the question by his arbitration whenever they 
may solicit it. 

I avail myself of this occasion to offer your excelleuc}^ aud your 
Government, in the name of the President of Guatemala and also in 
my own, the wannest thardcs for the kind welcome that was extended 
to us on our arrival in this hospitable country, and for the attention 
which the Government was pleased to show to the chief magistrate of 
the Guatemalan nation, and I have the honor to assure you that I am, 
with the most distinguished consideration, your verv obedient serv'-»nt, 

FERNANDO CEUZ. 



No. 70. 
31r. Romero to Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

[Translation.] 

Legation of Mexico, 
Washington, January 16, ISS3. (Received January 17.) 
Sir : Although I presume that you have received from the rei)resen- 
tative of the United States in Central America a copy of the message 
sent by General Barrios, President of Guatemala, to the general assem- 
bly of that republic ou the 1st of December last, giving an account of 
the manner in which the boundary question between his country and 
Mexico has terminated, nevertheless, believing that you have not the 
English text of that do'cument, I herewith inclose two copies of an edi- 
tion that has been published in English, which copies have just been 
received by me. A perusal of the ujessage of General Barrios will 
clearly show, Mr. Secretary, the justice with whicli the Mexican Gov- 
ernment acted in the question concerning boundaries which it had 
liending with Guatemala, since the reasons assigned by General Bar- 
rios in favor of the treaty concluded with Mexico in regard to this mat- 
ter are the same that have always been given by the Government of 
Mexico when this question has been discussed, and particularly, those 
which I had the honor to communicate to you in the correspondence 
which took place on this subject between the Department of State and 
this legation. 

I have, &c., 

M. ROMERO. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 177 

Message of General J. Rufino Barrios to the National Assembly of Guatemala. 

Gentlemen of the National Assembly: On the 24th of April last I had the 
honor of addressing the representatives of the nation, pointing ont the very grave 
evils that were, being bronght upon the country by the indefiniteness of the bounda- 
ries of its territory with that of the United States of Mexico, and in order to solve this 
inveterate qiiestion -which had so greatjy occupied the attention and so seriously com- 
promised the position of the republic, I resolved to leave no means untried. While 
doing so I practically and conscientiously consulted the interests of our country, feel- 
ing persuaded that by so doing I should render it a most inestimable service, aiid I re- 
quested, in the event of its being thought expedient, that very ample and especial 
authority, conferred by decree, should be given to me, to put an end to the dispute, 
in the manner I shoukl deem most conducive to the welfare of the republic. I asked 
for this authority, in view of the importance of the steps to be taken, and for this 
reason I did not wish to proceed in the matter without the full knowledge and con- 
sent of the assembly, and only by virtue of the ordinary powers conftrred on the ex- 
ecutive liy the constitution ; and you, gentlemen, considered well founded the arrange- 
ments set forth in the message I addressed to you for the jiurpose, and on the 2dth of 
the same month issued the decree conferring on me such unlimited authority. Under 
provision of -this decree, and availing myself, so as to be able to absent myself from 
the territory of Central America, of the leave of absence granted to me for one year, 
in order to rest from the fatigues of the Presidency, I started from this capital for the 
United States of America at the end of June, and having returned early in November 
last, after settling the dispute, I uoWj'in compliance with my promise, come to render 
you account of the negotiation concluded, and for this reason you have been convoked 
to an extraordinary session. 

Offlcial communications from the ministers of Guatemala accredited to the United 
States of America and to Mexico convinced me that grave complications would arise 
if the boundary question were treated and became the subject of negotiations in two 
places simultaneously, by two different persons and on two distinct bases, apt to en- 
gender grave complications, and in order to remove any such, and arrive at a satis- 
factory solution, it seemed to me indispensable that there should be joint action, by 
dealing myself direct with the matter, while listening at the same time to both rep- 
resentatives of the Government. I considered my personal intervention unavoidable, 
and the result has clearly proved that I was not mistaken. I proceeded to the United 
States, and at once became aware that the dispute had run and was running a serious 
risk of drifting into a real conflict ; that 1 had arrived at a critical moment, and 
that but for my timely arrival it would have been impossible later on to stem the 
torrent of difficulties and calamities in which the country would have been involved. 
Whatever the incidents of my trip may have been, I am glad that I left at the right 
moment, and without wishing to boast, I feel convinced that without my presence 
nothing would have been done, and that we should now have to confront a chaos of 
discord and confusien. 

The reports from the minister of Guatemala at Washington stated that he had held 
conferences in that capital with the plenipotentiary from Mexico ; that they had already 
agreed to a project for submitting the dispute to arbitration ; that in accordance with 
this project the Government of the United States was to act as umpire ; that the said 
Government accepted such mediation, and all idea of a treaty in Mexico had to be 
abandoned. The dispatches from Dr. Manual Herrera, representative from this re- 
public to the United States of Mexico, stated that the treaty proposed by him relin- 
quishing the possession of Chiapa and Soconusco in consideration of an indemnity 
would be accepted by Mexico ; that this was the course that ought to be adopted ; 
that the matter should be brought to a conclusion in that place, and that arbitration 
was impossible. Things could not continue in this condition any longer, and there- 
fore on leaving for the capital of the United States of America, I telegraphed instruc- 
tions to our representative in Mexico to meet me there, so that we might discuss the 
matter and bring it to a termination. 

In order to expedite matters, I held a conference as soon as possible with the Sec- 
retary of State of the American Government, declaring to him that the Goverameut 
of Guatemala was anxious to put an end to the pending boundary question with 
Mexico ; that in order to terminate the same, this republic relinquished its rights to 
the ownership of Chiapa and Soconusco, the only point that so far had stood in the 
way of an arrangement ; and that on this basis Guatemala desired the arbitration of 
the President of the United States. As the minister of this republic had given as- 
surance that the arbitration had already been proposed by him, and by the represent- 
ative of Mexico, and accepted by the Government of the United States, I was cer- 
tainly somewhat surprised to ascertain that on behalf of Mexico no such proposition 
had been made, nor had the project been agreed to ; that consequently all had to be 
commenced over again, inasmuch as it was indispensable that Mexico should equally 
express a wish of arbitration, so that the President of the United States might take 

H. Ex. 154 12 



178 BOUNDARY BETWP:EN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

upon himself a it',s})on.siliility, which he was good enonj^jh to declare in deference to 
both conutries he would not decline, provided that both parties near to the dispute 
gave liiin authority to that elfect. As what I heard was not in a<'eord with the in- 
formation tnruisiied to me by our representative, I persistently <lwelt on tlie idea 
that all Gnateniiihi wanted v.as that the Government of the United States should de- 
cide the dispute as aibitrator, and that such was my proposition, liable to he either 
accepted or declined by Mexico, but that in eitlier case I 8h<iuld have fuUilled my 
duty by grantino- as much as I possibly could. As it was decided in this ctuiference 
that the nature of the business called for written statements, the offer was made that 
a note should be sent on the following day embodying the ideas of the Government of 
Guatemala. 

This note was written and signed by the minister of Guatemala on the iJlst ot July ; 
in it was set forth the desire of this republic to bring to a termination the dispute re- 
specting the boniularies with Mexico, and for this purpose in furtherance of peace and 
friendship )>etween the two countries, the claim to CLsiapa and .Soconusco, the only 
obstacle that had hitherto stood in the way, was waived ; that on this basis the Govern- 
ment of Guatemala desired that the President of the United States as ariiitiator, aiul 
with such preliminary formalities as he might think tit to iirescribe, should fix the 
line of division iietween the two countries, and that through the minister of Guate- 
mala in Mexico tlte proi)osition of Guatemala shonld he nuule known to that Govern- 
ment, a proposition which, if acceded to, would put an end to the dispute, ami if de- 
clined would serve as evidence to all the world that we, on our side, had spared uo 
means of conciliation, and had made every jiossible concession. 

Later on, after returning to Mr. Matias Rnftiero, the jjlenipotentiary of Mexico, a 
visit ho had paid me, I spoke to him about the business in hand, and he exjiressed to 
me the most favorable disposition to settle it on the terms I had sngge^ted. He at 
the same time declared, however, that he was, so far, without authority from his Gov- 
ernment to treat ; that the bases which had been uiuler consideration on the 17th of 
April, and which already stipulated the abandonnu-ht of Chiapa, had been pre- 
sented by him in a private capacity, and delivered eoutidentially to the minister of 
Guatemala without instructions, and not in any official niaimer, and he therefore 
would have to ask for instructions and. powers Irom his Government, which he would 
do by telegraph. On the '24th of July the Secretary of State at Washington on his 
part answered the note that had been addressed to him, signed l)y the plenipoten- 
tiary of Guatemala in the United States, stating in his reply th;it it would attbrd the 
President great pleasure to accept the distinguished mark of confidence reposed in 
him, whenever Guatemala and Mexico, agreeing upon bases, shonld jointly solicit his 
intervention as umpire, to decide the dispute concerning the boundaries, a dispute 
which in his ox)iniou, the claim to Chiajja and Soconusco being (lis[)Osed of, and re- 
duced- to the establishment of boundaries, evidently led to a peaceful and harmonious 
solution. 

It would be useless to go into the details of the conduct observed a short time af- 
terwards, by the dii)lomatic representative of Guatenuila in Washington, and the at- 
tention of the assembly to such miserable trifles; the country knows me, and already 
has judged and characterized his conduct; and were 1 to seek to justity mystdf, it 
■would seem as though I thought my own could be suspected, I must, however, before 
stating to you the conditions of the negotiation concluded about the im])ortant ques- 
tion of frontiers, make it })uhlicly km)wn on this solemn occasion that 1 received 
constantly at the hands of both the Government and the peojile of the United Siates 
every ])roof of esteem and consideration, the memory of which I jues-'rve w ith atfec- 
tionate gratitude, in token of the sympathy and respect I feel for thit generous and 
noble nation. 

Mr, Romero, the plenipotentiary of Mexico in the United States of America, received 
from his Government the necessary powers for the discussion and .igning of the con- 
vention respecting the bound aiies with this rei)ublic, on the basis of consider! Ui; Chiapa 
and Soconusco as an intergial part of the Mexican Confederaticm, Meanwhile Mr. 
Herrerea, minister of Guatemala to Mexico, arrived in New Yoik; so that, after 
several prolonged conferences the substantial bases of the arrangement for })Ultiug 
an end to the dispute were agreed upon, and signed in that city on the Ivith of August. 
Therein it is declared that the governments of Guatemala and Mexico are desirous 
of bringing to an amicable terminiation the difficulties that existed between the two 
republics, and that it is their earnest wish to lay down solid tbnndations for the re- 
lations that should bind them to one another, and keeping these })recedents in view, 
the preliminary articles for a definite boundary treaty on that part of the frontier 
compiised by the State of Chiajja were drawn up. 

These articles read as follows : 

I. The republic of Guatemala withdraws from the discussion it has maintained re- 
lative to the rights it possesses to the ternfory of the State of Chiapa and its depart- 
ment of Soconusco. 

II. The definitive treaty of boundaries between Guatemala and Mexico is to be 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 179 

made oi] the basis of considering Chiapa and Soconnsoo integral jjarts of the United 
States of Mexico. 

III. The republic of Guatemala, satisfied with the due appreciation that Mexico 
entertaius of its conduct, and with the acknowledgment that the exalted motives 
which inspiren the agreeineut set forth in tlie preceding articles are wortliy and hon- 
orable, will not exact a pecuniary iudemnity, nor auy other compensation on account 
of the foregoing. 8fipulatio"8. 

IV. In case the two contracting parties should not be able to agree, as to the par- 
tial or total deniarkation of boundaiies, between the State of Chiapa and its depart- 
ment of PoconTisco on the part of Mexico, and the republic of Guatemala on the other 
part, or the commissioners that each must name to determine jointly the deniarkation 
of the dividing line, should differ on one or more points concerning said deniarkation, 
and it should become necessary to nominate a third party to adjust the dilhculties 
that might arise on this head, both governments agree to do so, and also to request 
the President of the United States of America to act as third party or umpire. 

V. In the deniarkation of the dividing line, actual ])ossession shall serve as the 
basis of the general rule; but this shall not prevent such basis lieing depaited from, 
by both parties, conjointly, for the purpose of following natural lines, or on any other 
account, and in this case the system of mutual compensations shall be adopted, pend- 
ing which drawing of the dividing line each contracting party shall respect the act- 
ual possession of the other. 

VI. The goveronienis of Guatemala and of the United States of Mexico, solemnly 
engage to sign the definitive treaty of boundaries, on the basis set forth in tlie present 
convention, in the City of Mexico, at the latest within six months reckoned from this 
date. 

By virtue of these conditions Guatemala can no longer allege any right to the ter- 
ritory of the State of Chiapa and of its department Socouusco, which, on the bound- 
aries being established, must be held to be an integral part of the United States of 
Mexico; nor can Guatemala by reason of this stipulation exact pecuniary indemnity 
or other compensation. 

I present to you, gentlemen, in all its nakedness, without any reserve, without any 
artifice, this point which constitutes the concession made by Guatemala, for I do not 
wish to conceal it ncr to disguise it in any way, an<l because with the consciousness 
of my actions, I am fully persuaded that in proceeding as I did I have in no way im- 
paired the rights of the country, nor burdened the same with any sacrifice whatso- 
ever, but that on the contrary I have rendered it great service by removing such a 
knotty and at the same time barren question; that cropping up at every step, and 
assuming threatening proportions, was calculated to interfere with the tranquil pro- 
gress of the country. 

You will excuse me, gentlemen of the assembly, if, though only in a rapid sketch, I 
recall to your recollection some of the antecedents of that inveterate dispute which 
has rendered the territory of Chiapa and Soconasco so prominent as an apple of dis- 
cord, flung between two peoples that should for so many reasons unite in and embrace 
of the most cordial fraternity. 

Before deciding to ask the assembly for the very ample authority I solicited, and 
which was granted to me, I had very seriously and thoroughly reflected on the bear- 
ings of this Chiapa and Soconusco question. Two solutions suggested themselves; 
either to go on in a headstrong manner and cling to the rights of Guatemala to that 
province, which would render impossible all arrangement, as Mexico on its side had 
declare 1 a thonsand times, that it would not relinquish its claim to the same, nor even 
submit it to arbitration, and that consequently whatever the treaty it must distinctly 
state as a basis that these provinces constituted part of its territory ; or abandon Chi- 
apa and Soconnt-co, and, giving up the dispute about it fix c'ear and sure boundaries 
between Mexico and Guatemala. The first would stumble upon the determined refusal 
of the United States of Mexico, the material impossibility of Guatemala conquering 
by force of arms that territory, and it must be said upon opinions that reckoned in 
their favor arguments neither few nor contemptible. The changes of fortune through 
which our history has passed since 1821 are familiar to you, and yon are all well 
aware that whenever Guatemala has most exerted itself to make good its rights to 
Chiapa and Soconusco, it has been met by an answer replete with facts and based 
ou many grounds. 

• Mexican writers tell us, that Chiapa proclaimed its independence from Spain, and 
its incm-poration with Mexico on the 3d of September, 1821, taking the oath thereto 
on the 8th of the same month, before the independence of Guatemala was proclaimed ; 
that not only did Chiapa do this, but Guatemala, induced by the intrigues of the ser- 
vile party to maintain our country annexed to an empire, a few days later, in con- 
formity with the resolution of the assembly of the 5th of January, 1822, did unite 
with Mexico; that on account of this last resolution, there took place a meeting of 
the authorities and people of Chiapa, in order to make it publicly known that they^ re- 
mained independent from the former kingdom of Guatemala, and that in accox'dance 



180 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Mitli their wish and onth, Chiapa foriDod part and parcel of the Mexican Empire, 
j)assing to that intent the act of the "iyth of September, 1822, in wiiich it was declared 
that it (lid not wish to belimg to Guatemala, hut to Mexico, and a commissioner was 
appointed to cf)nvey this expression of opinion to the President of the latter republic. 

They dispute our claims calling to mind that, AAhen a popular vo+e was taken as to 
whether {'hiapn, should belong to Mexico or Guatemala, there resulted, as is attested 
by the act of the 12th ot September, 1824, that on examination beijig made, 9ii,y29 
votes were cast for Mexico, and only 60,400 for Guatemala, from which cause arose the 
neiv act of declaration of federation of the 14th of DeciMuber, 1824. 

They tell ns that all the constitutions of Mexico have included Chiapa as part of 
its territory; the first federal constitution of 1S24; the one prouiulgated in 1843 de- 
nominated organic bases, and the article 4:! of the one of 1S57; that duriug the Cen- 
tral Rejiublic, and the i>romulg;ition of the seven coustitiitive laws, by which the 
Mexican States were converted into departments, Chiapa was one of them, nominat- 
ing its deputies to the general Congress and its senators ; that in the following years, 
when the legislative authority was exeicised by popular assend)lies, Chiajja elected 
its de|»uti(;s, who were its representatives in the Congress, and that when ihe dictator- 
ship held rule it was submitted thereto. They tell us that the independence from 
Spain being establif-hed, the jirovinc^s of the captaincy-general of Guatemala, to which 
jttrisdiction, acconting to the laws of the Indies, Chiapa and Soconusco had certai'dy 
appertained, remainecl independent of one anoth- r, and that vkhilst some could, and 
wished to form by themselves sovereign republics, others wished to, and could unite 
with other nationalities, as was done by Chiapa, and as was done t)y Guatemala it- 
self ; that the incori)oration of Chiapa and Soconusco was prior to that of Guateuiala 
and indejiendent of it, aud therefore if the latter, on account of the abdication and 
absence from Mexico of the Emperor Agustin Iturbide, chose and was at liberty to 
separate itself, Chiapa might continue irrevocably united to Mexico; and as the first 
co-operated in foiming,anew confederacy with the other provinces of t'eiitral America, 
so coitld Chiapa form part of the Mexican Federation. 

They tell that Chiapa has always ])0ssessed its political constitution as part of 
Mexico, the last one being that of the 4th of January, 1858, and that on the contrary 
the Federation of Central America itself, by decree of 21st of July, 1823, declared that 
if Chiapa desired to unite with them, it would be received with the greatest ))leasure, 
which imi>lies the acknowledgment of the legality of separation. They call our at- 
tention to the fact that, since the year 1824, Chiapa has obeyed the laws of Mexico, 
and has had recourse to its tribunals; that it has always shared the destinies of that 
nation, participating in its misfortunes, and cotitributing with its money and with is 
soldiers to the sup])ort of the wars it has carried on; that it has at all limes been sub- 
ject to its rule, be it the rule of liberty or the rnleof dictatorship, aud that ne\er, how- 
ever fraught with danger the times may have been, not even in the days of anarchy, 
nor during the war with the United States, nor duriug the last war waged against the 
French intervention, has Chiapa endeavored to separate from Mexico, notwithstanding 
the fact that its position and remoteness would have facilitated with separation, for the 
latter could have been effected witl) greater ease and less risk and liability than that of 
any of the remaining States: and that recently in the very days when the boundary 
question was being discussed on all sides, and by the press with the greatest warmth, 
Chiapa has made the most energetic protests against the idea of belonging to Guate- 
mala, and had put forth the most explicit and decided declarations of its wish to con- 
tinue lorraing part of the Mexican Republic. They bring to our notice that the ut- 
most that can be pretended is, that Chiapa had been one of the States of the Federa- 
tion of Central America; but that Guatemala alone and for itself could not lay claiir 
to that right, whilst the federation lasted from 1823, because itpossessed no sovereignty 
nor international re])resentation ; aud that, although the alliance was dissolve*! iu 
April, 1839, and the dissolution was confiimed by the decree of 1847, iu which Guate- 
mala declared itself a sovereign repnl)lic, the rights held by the federation were not 
transmitted to it. They answer tis that there are no conclusive proofs that the junta 
of Chiapa did not act of its own free will; that Mexico was not to blame because 
Guatemala did not send in proper time the commissioner who on its behalf was to have 
been present at the voting; and that whatever compulsion, whatever pressure might 
have been brought to bear, their influence would have been evanescent, ceasing as 
soon as they disappeared ; whilst Chiapa constantly and under every circumstance 
has persevered in its determination of not forming a part of Guatemala, but of Mexico. 

As regards Soconusco in particular, they point <uit to us that it has always been a 
district or department of Chiapa ; that when the latter separated from Guatemala and 
united with Mexico on the 3tl of Septemlier, 1821, Soconusco had to follow the desti- 
nies of Chiapa, for it was in accordance with the constitutive legislation of the In- 
dies, one of its "intendencias," and was thus tied up with it; and that if, on the 
meeting of the assembly, in 1824, it voted iu favor of Ijelonging to Guatemala, it had, 
nevertheless, to acce}>t and obey the resolution of the majority, which was in favor 
of Mexico ; that the decree of the federal Congress of the United States of Central 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 181 

America of the 18th of August, 1824, cannot be appealed to, for it only remained as a 
document, because Socounsco had the intention of entering into the federation as a 
State, and not of becoming a department of Guatemala; and that it would have re- 
gained its independence on the dissolution of the federation ; and that against thia 
declaration, which had no force of obligation for INfexieo, Ohiapa protested in Sep- 
tember, 18"24, and the federal Governnieut made a reclamation in BLarch, 1825. To 
the preliminaries of that year, and the occupation by General Santa Anna, in 1842, 
they urge in opposition that the Government of Central America had sent troops in 
January, 1&25, to take ndlitary possession of the tov/n of Tapachnla; that the posses- 
sion of Soconusco could not remain tor an indefinite period in the anomalous position 
in which it had been left by the preliminaries, merely under municipal rule, unless it 
were that there was a prospect of arriving at a speedy arrangement, which was counted 
upon at the time of agreeing to the preliminaries, for Soconusco would only have 
served as a refuge for malefactors, being so to say out of the pale of political author- 
ity ; and lastly, supposing even that thi-re had been some irregularity in the records 
of the,i«inta of Chiapa, or in the occupation of Soconusco, all this would have been 
remedied, not only as being acts committed long ago, but also by ratification founded 
on the acqnit-sceuce of Chiapa, which duriug a period of sixty-one years has not jiro- 
tested, and of Soconusco, which also has abstained from doing so during a period of 
forty yf-ars. 

Whoever reflects coolly and dispassionately on this matter must come to the conclu- 
sion that, with all the antecedents stated, and considered in all tlieir aspects, it was 
not so easy as any political visionary might suppose to make the rights of Guatemala 
triumph in a well reasoned and calm discussion, and prove that Chiapa and Soco- 
nusco <jught to form part of its territory and be restored to it. And not only was the 
right not irrefutable and clear, but it was also impossible to think of conquering those 
provinces and wrenching them from Mexico by force of arms. Efarl our right been 
unimpeachable and clear, had Chiapa and Soconusco lifted their voices against Mex- 
ico, asking the assistance of Guatemala, and protesting against the former, it is evi- 
dent th:it Guatemala would not have allowed so many years to pass by since these 
events, shrouding them with a veil of authority and respect, but would long ago have 
made an eifort to rescue and retain its territory, however unequal the struggle might 
have been in point of numbers and resources between Mexico and Central America, 
and stillmore so between Mexico and Guatemala — one of those minute nationalities 
that has sprung up in consequence of the shattering into fractions of the Central 
American fatherland, which took place in sad days of mournful memory, and the re- 
construction of which should be the ideal longed for with a burning desire by all those 
who feel within their bi-east the palpitations of true patriotism from a heart unfeign- 
edly liberal ; but that, relying on titles to which most powerful arguments can lie op- 
posed, with reiterated manifestations of all kinds on the part of Chiapa and Soco- 
nusco that they wish to appertain to Mexico, and do not wish, under any condition 
whatsoever, to form a part of Guatemala, as they only retain said recollections at the 
time of Spanish sway, and of the dismal years when the servile party ruled the coun- 
try ; a party through whose machination was brought about this separation, being 
one of so many evils they inflicted on the country, and that now, after more than sixty 
years have transytired since these events, Guatemala should arise and putting on mili- 
tary array, should go forth with the din of war, without resources and with numeri- 
cally quite inferior forces, to conquer Chiapa and Soconusco, would be — forgivt' me 
the expression, gentlemen — a madness worthy of being ridiculed by the pen of Cer- 
vantes, were it. not that such ridicule would be heaped on our native land — a country 
we ought 10 love with idolatry and veneration, and that such an act of folly would 
cause the shedding of rivers of blood of the people of Guatemala, to the sound of the 
wailiugs oA'er a most cruel desolation. No people can be called too weak, no resources 
too limited, whenever a nation rises in defense of a truly national cause, its own pres- 
ervaiion in a struggle for independence, and in order to resist an unwarranted ag- 
gression and defend its territory and institutions. In such a case nations are invinci- 
ble, or will know how to fall with glory ; they willallo w themselves to be reduced to i uins 
and hecatombs rather thau yield and be humiliated; and had such a case arisen, or 
should it ever anse, I feel convinced that all Guateraaltecans would rise like a man to 
fight with a will for their native land, to drench with their blood the fields of battle, 
and rather perish with honor than see their flag disgraced or brought to scorn. And 
I for my part, gentlemen, solemnly decl.ire that if such a day should come I would 
perish a thousand times at my post, which is the post of danger, in front of my sol- 
diers and at the head of all my friends, before I would consent- to a disgrace; that I 
"would myself anticipate the calls of the enemy by destroying' all those whose cow- 
ardice should lead them to refuse to sacrifice themselves in the struggle for their 
native land; and I would set fire to Guatemala with my own hand, fanning the 
flames with my breath, so as to leave no stone one upon another, before I consented 
to see it humiliated and conquered; and before its territory could be tramjiled on it 
would be necessary to pass over my body and the bodies of all my faithful compan- 



]82 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

ions. But in such solemn moments as these, when T must speak with all the frank- 
ness of my character, it is hut clue to acknowh-dge that a war for the acquisition of 
Chiapa and Socouusco was very far from being looked upon here as a national cause, 
as one of those popular wars that awake an echo, and inspire with enthusiasm the 
hearts of the multitude, a war in which the people at large, whose blood Is ever the 
first to be poured out, would take on interest, one of Ihose which are carried on and 
supported with vigor and nutiiuching determination. As Chiapa has never been in 
our possession since our independence was obtained, and the actual generation there 
•was born and has grown up under Mexican sway, little or no interest could be elic- 
ited in favor of its acquisition; geographers and historians, not only foreign but na- 
tive, figuring on the conservative side, did not s])eak of it as a part of our territory, 
hence there could hardly be a cause which would have provoked greater coolness, 
indifference, and unpopularity than the struggle undei taken to regain a province that 
did not wish to belong to us, "the reconquest of which would have conferred on us no 
advantag<>, and which this republic never owned before. On the contrary, all the 
advantages were on the side of Mexico, which not only is our superior in poi))ilation, 
in resources and in wealth, but against which we should have ha<l to undertake a 
war of aggression, Mexico being on the defensive in a cause arcmsiug the sympathies 
of its people, and thus being popular*, the cause of Chiapa calling on Mexico for help, 
of Chiapa which, ever since the independence, has been in the possession of Mexico, 
of Chiapa which in all its constitutions figures as an integral part of Mexican terri- 
tory; and for this reason all governments there looking upon its cession, or even a 
consent to discuss the justice of possession, as an impossibility, as an attack on the 
constitution, and as treason to the country. Chiapa has always shared the lot of 
Mexico, in the days of glory and prosperity as well as in the days of misfortune and 
calamity. Mexico could not abandon it, could not de.sert it, nor appear to doubt its 
own rights, and would have had to expend all its resources and power in the preser- 
vation and defense of Chiapa; any attempt to separate which, coming from any 
quarter, would have been considered an irreparable insult. Judge, then, if there 
would have been the remotest chance of gaining a success by force of arms. It should 
be here repeated, and I wish that the assembly would Itestow particular attention on 
this point, that Guatemala has never since its independence held possession of the 
territory in dispute, nor ever had the slightest prospect or hope of possessing it, so 
that, in reality, for the country the cession has been purely one in name; nothing has 
been ceded in fact, for a cession presupposes a clear and evident right and title to 
that which constitutes it, and presupi>oses also the real and undisturbed possession 
of a property. 

A cession has been made of a thing the republic never possessed, nor ever could 
hold; a thing which conid not even conveniently be held; an illusory and ephemeral 
right has been surrendered, the right to dispute the ownership of Chiapa and Socou- 
usco, a right not only Utopian, but even mischievous, inasmuch as it created ft state 
of restlessness among us, undermining confidence abroad, and breeding ill-will between 
tw^o neig-hborly ami fraternal countries; and all this without ever being able to ])ro- 
duce any result favorable to Guateuiala, only jeoparding that which it actually pos- 
sessed, merely for the sake of the barren glory of keeping up the privilege of leaving 
open an unprofitable discussion about a thiug it never had owned and never could 
become the owner of. 

In order to form a correct judgment as to the justice of these ideas, it is necessary 
to bear in mind that the territory of Chia])a and Socouusco adjoins undisputed terri- 
tory possessed by Guatemala. If the land in (piestifm had been situate in the center 
of Mexico, not adjoining territory ])ossessed by Guatemala, it would have been of less 
importance to leave the question in abeyance, for although such a state of uncer- 
tainty would have produced other grave inconveniences, w^e should at least not have 
been exposed to the risk of losing the certain in the pursuit of the doubtful and im- 
possible, nor of provoking conflicts that might have ended iu ruin and disaster for 
Guatemala. 

But the boundaries between this republic and Mexico wei-e never settled, for when- 
ever Ihey were treated of, the dispute al)out Chiapa and Socouusco sprang up ; Mex- 
ico insisting that these should be considered as part of her territory, wliile Guate- 
mala invariably denied this; hence it resulted that the boundaries renuiined forever 
undecided ; that in consequence of this und(^termined state of affairs the limits of So- 
conusco continually made greater inroads on the territory of Guatemala, and that 
districts aud villag'es which iu 1821, and even in 1H4'2, were recognized as indisputa- 
bly belonging to Guatemala now are Mexican; and that at every moine.nt some new 
dispute and some new pretcuisiou arose, and that day by day the area rightly belong- 
ing 10 Giuitemala came to be curtailed, an area which has been specially comniitted 
to the supervision of the executive, whose duty it is to watch ovei' it, preserve it in its 
integrity, and of -which it must render the .strictest account. 

E\ery act which Guatemala might look 111)011 as an encroachment would have given 
rise to explanations and claims, but these would not be taken into consideration, be- 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA, 183 

cause it would be contended that the territories involved in tlie discussion belonoed 
to Mexico, and in sujiport of sucli affirmation appeal would always be made to the 
uucerUinty of the boundaries, to the non-existence of a clear and decided line, and 
to the obscurity arising therefrom entangling matters in a most intricate maze. And 
such claims and explanations would go on exciting feelings of resentment ; they would 
breed animosity, would involve eventually the greatest difficulties and conflicts, whose 
bearings not those will best know how to measure and appreciate who lead a theo- 
retical life in imaginary spheres, exposed like the ancient and learned King of Spain 
to lose his lauds while contemplating the movements of the stars of heaven, but those 
who daily experience the toil and are brought in contact with the practical difficul- 
ties of government:, those upou wliom all responsibility resfs, aud who in the hour of 
risk not only have to be the first to face the danger of auysituatioQ, but have also to an- 
swer for the property of the citizens, aud the blood of soldiers, wiiich would fall upon 
the heads of those wbo should rashly and inconsiderately provoke a struggle in sup- 
port of a doubtful cause, in which no advantage could be gained, even should success 
attend it, and which would be hopeless in the end. 

It mattered nothing to Mexico that the question should be prolonged to all eternity, 
inasmuch as that country was in time-honored aud peaceful posessiou of the terri- 
tory in dispute ; Mexico did not run the risk of having its possession curtailed, but, 
on (he contrary, there was tho probability tha it would continue to increase. Guate- 
mala not only did not hold )iossessiou, but was exposed every daj' to new losses, hence 
it became a matter of vital importance to bring the dispute to a termination; it was 
urgent ami not to be put aside, and it behooved us, therefore, to act, and work with- 
out rest with this object before us. 

My mind has often been disquieted by these considerations, and I have been unable 
to listen with a smile of di-dain to those who intrenched themselves behind the na- 
tion:.! honor in order io cry out against the idea of giving up Chiapa and Soconusco. 

It was claimed that the national honor would not allow us to give up the right to a 
stri]) of laud which had never been in our possession, but yet could consent to our 
contempiaiing with iiiditlerence the loss of that which we actually held, a loss which 
would continually increase, aud which would have resulted from and as a natural con- 
sequence of the iudeterminateness of the frontiers, and through the maintenance of 
an illusory, chimerical, and ridiculous right ! 

They- who thus invoked the rlignity of Guatemala, who in this manner are so jeal- 
ous of its national honor, who make this boast of patriotic pride, ^;hould, instead of 
clamoring senselessly, have abandoned their homes aud their families, take up arms, 
aud march to the frontier, commencing in the hrst place by the conque-t of all that 
which was in our positive possession, and has been lost only through persisting in as- 
serting a claim that offered no advantage, and was impossible to justify. 

But that false patriotism, tit only to give rise to difficulties, never dors anything for 
the good of the country; it shirks all obligations, avoids all risks, abstains from all 
sacrifice, aud, creating an atmosphere of uneasiness, only hampers the action of those 
who can do good, of those who resolutely devote themselves to the study of and pro- 
motion of the welfare of the repul)lic, those linally who, attaching more importance 
to practice aud to deeds than to words and formulas, consult conacieutioiisly the true 
interests of the nation. 

Since, then, this barren question had to be ab.indoued, it was a thousand tines 
better to at lea.st avoid a pecuniary indemnity. It should never be said that our si- 
lence had been Ijouglit with money, nor that we had made an unworthy cession in 
exchange for a hamlful of gold. If not right or houorabh-. to yield in the dispute, it 
certainly could not be made so by receiving m compeusaitiou any amount whatsoever, 
and if it was sound ]>olicy, prudent, and necessary to the interests of Guateautla to 
put an end to the discussion, bur>ing forevei' iii, oblivion the pretensions we had 
hitherto advanced, it had to be done in a^ manner entirely decorous, without anything 
that could be looked ou as a sale of territory, without anything tluic wiMi a semblance 
of trutii miglit give rise to the swriseless sus[)icion that they who bore i)art in the ne- 
gotiation had stained their hands by contact with coin, and iiualiy without anything 
that could detract from the merit uf Guateinalai, aud could make it appear as a s liable 
comnu)d!ty. 

The republic, and the Government in its name, have withdrawn from the dispute, 
because it behooved them to withdraw; no sale was made, for none could rightly be 
made; for if to maintain the right to Chiapa and Soconusco had been really one of 
those questions of honor and dignity in which any compromise is impossible,' that 
honor and dignity would not have been presers'ed l)y any payment, but it would 
rather have been still more tarnishi-d and degraded, aud whether with or without in- 
demnity never should we have yielded. 

I take no notice of nor am I intimidated or in the least influenced by what the sys- 
tematic enemies of my administration may say. They disapprove of my conduct, and 
by the use of miserable intrigues have placed difficitlties in my way, in order that I 
might not be able to attain the solution I fortunately have reached ; they will cry 



184 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

out that my conduct is dishonorable and wanting in patriotism. Their criticisms, 
instead of" disconcerting me, cause me the most lively sutisfaction. If the stej) I have 
taken had been damaging to the interests of Guatemala, if it had been dishonorable 
for the Government and for myself, they would have endeavored to assist me, they 
would have applauded me, and would have caused the greatest praises to he shftwered 
upon me. Tliey disayiprove and vituperate because they are aware that this step in- 
augurates an er.i of peace and tranquillity for Guatemala, because; they are aware tliat 
it creates for me a claim to the gratitude and esteem of my fellow citizens, and that, 
thanks to it, our history may some day inscril)e mj- name in ihe book in which are 
inscribed the naTues of those who have served their country well. Let enemies, then, 
censure and find fault with me ; it neilher takes me by surprise, nor do I de])]ore it ; 
on the contrary, I wished for it, and am glad of it. It was but natural that they 
should disapprove of my condiutt if it does away with the mad intrigues they were 
concocting by tal<ijig advantage of the coolness of our relations with Mexico, which 
resulted from the wietched boundary dispute. Their rage is easily ex])laimMl, for, 
under cover of this disjjnte, and using it as a pretext, tluy were sowing alarm and 
uneasiness in the republic, spreading false rumors of rujiture and of war, dis(]uieting 
commerce, causing industry to flag, placing difticulties in the way of and rendering 
almost impossible all business, and destroying credit and confidence. No wonder 
they disapprove of acta that ]iut an end to a question which they nuide use of because 
they saw in it an obstaole to ti.e G<iveinment's devoting its direct and exclusive at- 
tention to the progress and rise of the country. It was to be ex])i cted that I should 
receive blame at their own hands, for, from the moment it became known that the 
difi'erence was settled, all doubts and ft ars have disappeared, credit has been re-es- 
tablished, euteiprise revives, capital has cone forward, abandcniing the obscurity of 
the recesses where in the da;\ s of alarm it had timidly hidden, in order to impart a 
new life and animation to undertakings; in fact, grejit imjirovements are in prepara- 
tion for our countiy, thanks to the )!ea<t' and tiancjuillify w hi< h has been established. 
Welcome, then, to their slanders! Their disa)q)roval is one of my best titles of honor, 
and one of the evidences that ])rove most clearly the opportuneness and necessity of 
the measure I adopted, and it. justifies my acts. 

But though I do not fear the unjust and ill intentioned censures of my enemies, I 
do fear and hold in respect the censure and re])robatiou of my frii-nds, of those men, of 
those friends, who, likeinyself, have taken u(ion their shoulders the great work of 
the regeneratu)n and imiirovement of the couuiry. 

And my friends might justly have blamed me, and would have had cause for blaming 
me and cursing me, if 1 had put in jeopardy the future and the destiiues of the coun- 
try in a foolish enterprise and an unwarrantable war. They would have had cause 
to curse me, if, through a mistaken sentiment of chihli>h self-love and a false sense of 
dignity, I had clung to a fantastic right, and thus brought u]>()n thu country real 
evils and positive ruin ; if with the mad (irojecl of couiiuering what \n e had never pos- 
sessed, nor couhl ]iossess, and which finally it would not t ven have been in our inter- 
est to possess, I had plunged the country into all the horroi's of a struggle in which 
all the advantages would have been against us. They, my friends, would be justified 
in calling me to account for tlieir inine<l fortunes, their ]iroi>' rties destroved; they 
would call me to account for the priceless blood of the- sons of the country uselessly 
shed; they would call me to account to the widows and orjihansof an innumerable 
number of victims, and for the desolation and mourning of the people, and then with 
right the avenging image of cuu' native land would rise alio\ e the ruins to execrate 
my name and to cuise my memory, if, following the dictates of a foolish misconcep- 
tion, I had plunged it into an abyss of disgrace whilst iuvoking its honor — I had 
sacrificed the lives and fortunes of its sons, watering its soil with wasted blood, and 
niiqjing the hist symptoms of well being, that were l>eginiiing to spring forth in lux- 
uriance from the seeds of liberal ideas. Now, I have the satisfaction to feel that I 
am very far from being censured by my fi lends; I have had to make sacrifice, but 
this sacrifice nu'cfs with ample ccmpeMsaiion in their good opinion and esteem, and 
the got)d accruing from it tv the country 1 adore and to which I am thoroughly de- 
voted. 

I have just said that m order to solve this question I had to make a sacrifice, and 
I must now add that it has been the greatest sacrifice of my life, and that to make 
up my mind to it, I had to use over myself an extraonlinary amount of command and 
of resolute self-denial. No, after meditating on the stibjcc-t and putting aside all pre- 
possession and i>rejmlice, I couhl not have the slightest (huibt as to t!i<' necessity and 
ex)iediency of the measure I adopted, but yet there crowded on my miud all the diffi- 
culties it might occasion me, all the versions that might l)e put forward, and all the 
wretched detractions that would be sure to fi How me. Our politicians had asserted 
that the right of Guatemala to Chiapa and Soconusco was irrefutable; that this 
right ought to be vindicated ; that national pride demauded that no concessit>n should 
be made on the subject, and that this right should never be given u|), nor the title 
arising therefrom. And this oi)inion was filtrating and spreading amongst the men of 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 185 

the country, who already, without examiuation, entertained it and communicated 
it from one to another. A o;reat majority, without being familiar with the dispute, 
without sTudving its antecedents, without taking into account all the circumstances 
connected withit, without a clear appreciation ofthematter, without takingthetrouble 
to examine it from its origin and to master all its detnils, indorsed such opinion, and 
in this manner a sort of tradition was being formed, echoed by every one who busied 
himself about it ; a tradition from which even my administration has not been ex- 
empt. With this antecedent before him, one who should speak of maintaining 
the rights of Guatemala to a territory unknown to nearly all, and the history of 
which was completely foreign to him, would flatter public vanity by appearing to 
sustain the honor of the nation ; while any one who, on the contrary, looking at 
the dispute from its true aspect, should seek to put an end to it, giving up all discus- 
sion about the ownership ot Chiapa and Soconusco, would expose himself to calumny, 
to the accusation of want of patriotism, and why should I conceal it ? Be accused, 
perhaps, of weakness or of treason. While, therefore, on the other hand, a conscien- 
tious appreciation of the real interests of the country was well calculated to counsel 
the abandonment of this useless dispute, and thereby securing the boundaries, as well 
as the tranquillity and the prosx'erity of Guateuiala, there would, on the other, be 
raised, to stifle any action to that effect, the voice of personal convenience and self- 
interest, and whosoever undertook to present the matter in its true light, and patrioti- 
cally dare to carry out such a bold and decisive measure, would expose himself to the 
grave danger of losing bis popularity. 

I have done, gentlemen, what hitherto no Government had the resolution to do; I 
have withdrawn from a contest from which neither Paron, nor Luis Batres, nor 
Aycinena before me have dared to withdraw. I shall not allow myself to be com- 
pared with any of the leaders of the servile party, who brought so many misfortunes 
upon the country, who with their blunders and their ill-deeds provoked the separa- 
tion of Chiapa, and who, by joining the Mexican Empire, sanctioned such separation, 
thereby making patent their own abasement and failing sense of dignity. The serv- 
ile party in 1851, in the conferences that preceded tbe projected treaty with Don 
Juan N. de Pereda, had already recognized the incorporation of Chiapa and Soconusco } 
if that treaty was not concluded, if the dispute was not brought to an end, if the solu- 
tion that I have now arrived at was not reached then, if there was introduced, so as to 
set it on one side, the claim for the payment of the debts of Chiapa, as the necessary 
condition for the abandonment of the rights of Guatemala, with the clear intention 
that the other stipulations should not be accepted, it was not in comxdiance with a 
feeling of national delicacj^, nor because this conduct arose from a generous impulse 
not to curtail the teiritory, nor to wound the pride and self-respect of Guatemala. It 
was as though that party, being condemned to cause only misfortunes without hav- 
ing the courage to repair them, and to be unable to render any service to the country, 
or to do anything that should deserve imjjerishable gratitude, the Government had 
become apprehensive that by such a measure its unpopularity would reach its climax, 
and the measure of public indignation would pass all bounds. 

I have not shrunk from facing these dangers, however great the struggle within 
me may have been. Often has the consciousness of my duty battled within me with 
the fear that the people might misinterpret and not sanction my proceedings, that it 
might withdraw from me, not. power, for which I have no ambition, and from which 
I have so often wished to retire, but its esteem and confidence, and. might look upon 
me, though only for a moment, as disloyal to the interests of the country. I thought 
for one thing that the baseness of my enemies might go so far as to cry out that I 
had been bought by Mexican gold, and that I was capable of lowering mvself to their 
level of venality and for money sell the soil, thereby depriviiig Guatemala of a real 
and poaitive right. I reflected that they might tax me with weakness, imagining as 
they have already imagined a thousand absurd plans about selling the teirilory to 
the Government of the United States ; that there was on my side a weak yielding, or 
that my residution was the Impulse of the moment, due to imaginary refusals and fan- 
cied obstacles. I came to reflect that this step more than any other might be made 
use of by malevolence and calumny, to spread inauspicious interpretations and sense- 
less conjectures that would represent me as untrue to the cause of the republic, and 
as trami)ling under foot the rights of the people. I thougbt that perhaps an unjust 
opinion might declare itself against me, tarnishing my name for having done what 
I consider the most precious service ever rendered to my country; and I thought that 
this dishonor might fall on the innocent heads of my children, sharers of my heart, 
and the delight of my life, to whom I do not aspire to bequea! b either riches or power, 
but the precious heritage of a spotless namii and ihe gratitude of the couutrv, earned 
by the conduct of their father, ever patriotic and loyal. And I wish that they may 
always be able to lift up their heads with the pride of innocence, that no one may be 
able to point at them on account of auy infamous action of their father ; that on look- 
ing over my history they may always find it worthy of respect and consistent, so 
that they may respect my name and bless my memory as that of a faithful servant of 



186 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Guatemala, 'and that they maybe able to take pride iu beinuthe sons of one wlio waa 
a good son of his coimtry! I did what ncitlier Paron, nor Batres, nor Ayciiieua did, 
because I believed that I ought to do it, and because, having before my eyes the idea 
of duty, I always act as I believe I should act, without paying atteutiou to what 
others did or left undone. 

I do uot propose to clear myself from the charge that may arise, iusiuuating that 
I may have been bought, for there are imputations so infamous that one fears contact 
•with their iulaniy while taking notice of them tor a moment, were it but to trjimple 
them iu the dust, for, like the viper, they sting tlie toot that crushes them. To those 
who may accuse me of weakness and may believe that I was prompted while in the 
United States by some untoreseen incidents, I will answer with the testimony of in- 
numerable political aud personal friends, some of whom even belonged to the previous 
administratiou, who are all of them fully aware of the resolve that I arrived at for 
some time past, aud who know that when I asked fur special authority at the hands 
of the assembly, it was with the lirm intention of giving up Chiapa aud Socouusco, 
and they will contirm that I have debated the suliject with them at length, adducing 
in support of my resolution the same ideas, and the siime arguments I now have the 
honor t'f submitting to the assembly. I may furthermore reply to them that in of- 
ficial notes from the secretary of foreign affairs, directed to the then minister of 
Guatemala iii Washington, prior to my (leparture from this country aiid by my iu- 
strnctious, it was stated that in conformity with what was expressed in other dis- 
patches, Guatemala had always been and ^till was most sincerely desirous that an 
end should be piit to the dispute pending about the botiudary of its territoiy with 
that of the United States of Mexico; audit it could be solved by arintration, the 
earnest and long-entertained wishes of the GovernnuMit would bf< realized. It was 
there also stated that the Government did uot feel the least uneasiness as to the con- 
ditions that might altacli to the verdict to be given by the umpire, for even though 
the same might nu)ve adverse, there would at any rate have been obtained the great 
boon that, while doing away with any accusations, founded or not. for the future the 
boundaries of the two countries would be clearly deiined, the continual ditliculties to 
which their uncertainty gave rise renuived, and with it the constant eneroaehments 
would be stopjied that were taking place all the time u[iou that portion of which 
Guatemala had held uninterrupted possession. By this note which had been pub- 
lished improperly, since it was directed to the legation by the minister of foreign 
affairs, aud ought not to have s(^eu the liuht without special orders and instructions, 
it was clearly set forth what the leanings atid intentions of the Government were, 
and it was made patent that its conduct was consistent, aud that what was stated 
publicly was iu perfect accc^id an<l harmony with these confidential doeuments, in- 
tended to lenif.in iu the archives of the legation, where they were intrusted to the 
safe keeping of the mitiister. 

The charge of weakness on account of the arraugemeut (uitered into is the most 
unjust charge that can be brought against me, for, ]uitting aside a modesty which in 
these circumstances would be impolitic ami unbecoming, I must state that few would 
have had the courage to take the step I have just taken. I hav ecomiiared many 
times the sensations that one feels on tlie day of battle when going into action, and 
the impressions that I experienced in going through all that I had to go through, so 
as to arrive at the determinatum to sign this convention, which, though so useful 
and indispensable ff)r Guatenuila, might turn out forme a source of mortitication aud 
disappointment, ami I had to muster more energy and resolution iu order to do so 
than I should have needed to takt; my part iu the battle amidst the deadly bullets of 
the enemy. There is iu battle a certain eutliusiasm, a certain feverish excitement 
that stimulates and leads one on, reducing all danger to insiguificaut proi)ortions; 
there is the pros])ect of famci for him who fights with valor; the allurement of tri- 
um])h, the llattering hope of the honors an<l s])len(lor of victory ; aud even the idea 
of falling under tht fire of the enemy aud perishing on the field of hatth* presents 
itself to the iuuigiuation as surrounded by a glorious wealth of immortality ; one dies 
with honor and conquers 1he right to live in the memory of jjosterity with the re- 
nown v.hicli courage and heroism alwiiys confer. But to sign in cold blood a conven- 
tion which, however productive of good to the country, may bring upon him who, 
following the dictates of his conscience, d<!termiues to conclude it, calumnies of all 
kinds, autiiiathy and public reprobatitui, and ])erhaps even the stigma of disloyalty, 
of ingratitude, ami of treason ; to him who undertakes to do se, none of these attrac- 
tions are held out — his haiul trembles, his heart itself may fail for a moment, and if 
at last the step is taken, it is after suffering the effects of a violent struggle of the 
strongest and most opposite feelings. 

In this struggle, genth'men, the strength of my feeling of duty triumphed finally 
over my wish for tranquillity aud personal comfort. To serve my country I had sac- 
rificed my health and rejjose, I did not shrink from a temporary 8e])aration from my 
family, aud I had without the slightest hesitation exposed myself to the accidents of 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 187 

travel. To serve my country I have also done that which it remained for me to do, 
the only thing I had not done hitherto ; I have risked my honor and my name, which 
I vahae all the more hecanse they are the honor and the name of my children, the 
priceless treasure that they mn.st receive from me, ami preserve with the greatest ven- 
eration ; and 1 have risked the prestige and popularity with which this generous 
nation, whose happiness and progress are and always have been the object of my most 
ardent aspirations, has constautly honored me. 

And I have not regretled for one single moment, nor do I now regret what I did, 
but on the contrary I am proud of it, and take credit to myself. I have the conscious- 
ness that I have complied withmy duty ; that I have rendered a service to my country, 
and on learning the enthusiam with wldcli the news was received here of the con- 
vention agreed upon, and on seeing the demonstrations with which this people, whom 
I so dearly love, received me on my return fiora carrying out the mission I had under- 
taken, as thonjih it wished to testify that it did full justice to my loyalty, and ac- 
knowledged the propriety of my actions, I was deeply moved, and the sacrifice I had 
made appeared tome insignitieant — I felr within me new strength to repeat ifc a thou- 
sand times, w ere it necessary, and io uiake for the people still greater ones, if required, 
in retnru for its .itiection and faithfulness. 

The dispute, which for such a long time has been a cause of uneasiness to the peo- 
ple of Guatemala, has at length been settled ; the treaty detining the boundaries such 
as laid down on the 12th of August stipr.lated that it should be concluded in Mexico, 
and it has since been sigied : there has been marked out in it, with perfecti accord, 
and without any necessity for arbitration, the line of division, and with a constant 
view to the greatest clearness and security in the boundaries, we have succeeded in 
mutually establishing just compensatio^ns. It is now to be submitted to your exam- 
ination and judgment. We shall henceforward have a safe, permanent, and well de- 
termined line; two peoples of America— two contigU(>us and fraternal nations are 
thus saved the danger of enmity, arising from a mere frontier question, and the risk 
of staining their soil \^ith blood in a Iratricidal struggle for a strip of land of com- 
paratively little importance to either of them. 

When the time comes for me to deliver up the Presidency, I shall be able to leave 
it in tranquillity ; I shall not return Chiapa 'and Socouusco to the nation, for I did 
not receive them when I came into po^ei-; what I did receive and shall not return is 
the wretched legacy of the boundary dispute with Mexico, a source of uneasiness and 
disturbance to the country. If my not returning such a legacy of calamity be a 
reproach, I shall bear the burden of it cheerfully. 

Gentlemen, on submitting to yoii all the documents in which the treaty entered in- 
to is set forth allow me to entreat you to examine them calmly, and to let the most 
entire liberty preside over your deliberations, without partiality or considerations of 
any kind. Do not be swayed by a wish to be agreeable to me, for I may have been 
subject to an cn'or of judgment and may be swept away at any moment. Be solely 
guided by the wish to serve your country disinterestedlj^ and courageously, for it may 
at any time demand of yourselves or of your sons an account of the resolution that you 
may arrive at. 

There is committed to your decision the most important business ever submitted to 
the assembly. If, in representation of the country, with your hands placed upon 
your hearts, you in your consciences approve my conduct, I shall feel an indescril>able 
satisfaction : but before doing so reflect that yon will share w'ith me all responsibility 
inseparable from it — that yon will identify yourselves with me beibre the tribunals 
of public opinion and of history, which will judge this question in the future, and 
inscribe therein either glorious lines of praise, or lines of disgrace and of shame for 
all who shall have shared in the trausaction. There is tiiue yet for reflection. Act 
with tirmness and loyalty, without considerations that later on couhl only be alleged 
to cover you with leproacli. 

If, unfortunately, the step I have taken does not merit your approval ; if you consider 
that it injures or dishouurs the country, in my owu name and iu the name of Guate- 
mala, I entreat J ou to condemn it energetically and freely, so as not to bear conse- 
quences it may entail and not to compromise your reputations, through an act of 
foolish comj)liance or pusilauimous weakness, and not to allow the countrj' to be dragged 
nto a thing involving shame or indignity which woukL bring on you eternal self- 
reproach and a tremendous respousiuility. 

If your votes are opposed to the negotiation, I will take refuge in the rectitude of 
my conscience. I shall raise my forehead without a blush, for my only motive has 
been the welfare of Gualemala. I -shall iie free from all reproach, for I have done all 
that was in my power to avert the evils that may befall us through leaving this dis- 
pute unsettled, and am resigned to submit calmly the share I bore iu this matter to 
the impartial judgment of posterity an<l to the verdict of history. 

J. EUFINO BAREIOS. 

Guatemala, Decemher 1, 1882. 



188 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

No. 71. 

Mr. Morgan to Mr. FreUnghuysen. 

No. 614.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, May 9, 1883. (Received May 25.) 
I ! Sir : I transmit herewith the treaty entered into between the Republics 
of Mexico and Guatemala on the 27th September, 1882, the ratitications 
of which were exchanged at this cni)ital on the 1st May, 1883, as 
published, officially, in the " Siglo Diez y Nueve" of the 4th instant, 
together with a translation thereof. 
I have, &c., 

P, H. MORGAN. 



[Inclosure in 614.— Translation.] 

Treaty hetweeu Mexico and Guatemala. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, SECTION OF AMERICA. 

The President of the Republic has seen fit to address me as follows : 

Manup:l Gonzales, constitutional President of the United States of Mexico, to the 

inhabitants thereof : 

Be it known : 

That at the city of Mexico, on the twenty-seventh of September, in the year eight- 
een hundred and eighty-two, between plenipotentiaries duly authorized to that effect, 
a treaty was entered into between the United States of Mexico and the Republic of 
Guatemala, in the form and tenor as follows : 

The Governments of Mexico and Guatemala, desiring to bring the dififlcultiea 
existing betwen thetn to an amicable conclusion, have agreed to enter into a treaty 
■which will accomplish so desirable au object, and to this end they have appointed 
their respective plenipotentiaries, viz, The President of the RepubHc of Mexico has 
appointed Don Ignacio Mariscal, the secretary of state for foreign relations ; and the 
President of the Eepublic of Guatemala, Don Manuel Herrera, jr., envoy extraor- 
dinary and minister plenipotentiary (from Guatemala) near the Government of Mexico, 
who, after having exhibited their respective powers, which were found to be iu reg- 
ular order, and having before them the preliminaries signed l»y the representatives 
of both nations in the city of New York, iu the Uuir.ed States of America, on the 12th 
of August of the present year, have agreed upon the following articles : 

Article I. 

The Republic of Guatemala forever renounces the rights which she has considered 
she had to the territory of the state of Chiapas and its district of Socoiiusco, and in 
consequence, that territory is to be considered as an integralpart of the United States 
of Mexico. 

Article II. 

The Mexican Republic properly appreciates the conduct of Guatemala and acknowl- 
edges the motives that have prom])ted the foregoing rentmciatinu are as worthy as 
they are honorable, and declares tliat in similar circumstances would have pursued 
the same course. 

Guatemala on her part, satisfied with this solemn acknowledgment and declaration, 
agrees not to demand an indenniity of any sort in consideration of the foregoing stip- 
ulation. 

Article 111. 

The boundary between the two nations shall, forever, be as follows: 
1st. From a point in the sea three leagues distant from the upper mouth of the river 
Zuchiate, and thence following the deepest channel thereof, to the point at which it 
intersects the verticnl plane which cro.sses at the highest pointof the volcano of Tacaiiil, 
and distant twenty live miles from the most southern pillar of the gate of Talquian, 
so that that gate shall bo ou the territory of Guatemala. 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 189 

2cl. The determinate line by the vertical plane defined above until it touches the 
river Zuchiate at the point of its intersection with the vertical plane which passes the 
suiiiniit of Buenavista and Ixbul. 

3d. The determiuate liue by the vertical plane whicli passes the summit of Buena- 
vista, determined by the astronomical observation taken by the Mexican scientific 
commission, and the summit of the Ixbul hill from where it intersects the former to 
a point four kilometers ijeyond said hill. 

4th. The parallel of latitude which crosses the last-named point and from thence 
eastward until it reaches the deepest point of the river Usiimacinta, or tiie river 
Chixey in case said parallel does not cross the first-named river. 

5th. The middle of the deepest channel of the Usumacinta, in the one case, or of the 
{ hixey in place of the Usumacinta, continuing thence, on the other, from where the 
said parallel touches one or the other of these rivers, to where it touches the deepest 
channel of the Usumacinta, twenty-five kilometers to the south of Tenosique in Ta- 
basco to be measured from the center of the plaza of that town. 

6th. The parallel of latitude referred to above, from its intersection with the deepest 
channel of the Usumacinta, until it intersects the meridian which passes at one-third 
of the distance between the centers of the Plazas of Tenosique and Sacluc, this dis- 
tance beiui^ calculated from Tenosique. 

7th. This meridian from its intersection with the parallel above mentioned to the 
latitude of seventeen degrees and forty-nine minutes (17° 49'). 

8th. The parallel of seventeen degrees and forty-nine minutes (17° 49') from its in- 
tersection with the anterior meridian indefinitely toward the east. 

Article IV. 

In order to trace the boundary lines upon maps to be made, and to erect upon the 
territory monuments which will show the limits of each Republic in conformity with 
the provisions of the foregoing article, each of the two Governments shall appoint a 
ecientific commission. Both commissioners shall meet at Union Jurez, six months at 
the latest from the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, and proceed at once with 
the foregoing operations. 

They shall make surveys and maps of the same; and the result of their labors, 
agreed to by them, shall be considered as a portion of this treaty, and shall have tlie 
eame eftect as though they had been inserted therein. Their work shall be completed 
within two years, counting from the date of their meeting. If either of the commis- 
sioners is not present at the expiration of six months as above stipulated, the other 
at the time specified shall commence its work, and the work done by it shall have 
the same force and validity as though it had been the work of both. The two Gov- 
ernments will as soon as ijossible enter into an agreement which shall determine the 
details of the commissions and their work. 

Article V. 

The citizens of either of the two contracting parties who, in virtue of the stipula- 
tions of this treaty may be in the territory of the other, may remain therein for such 
period of time as may be convenient to them, preserving in said territory the proper- 
ties which they may possess, or alienate them and transmit the price thereof wher- 
ever they like, without being subjected to any species of contribution, charge, or tax. 
Those who elect to remain in any of the territory ceded, may retain their condition 
and rights of citizenship of the nation to which the territory formerly belonged, or 
acquire citizenship of the nation to which it is to belong in the future. But election 
of citizenship must be made of one or other nation within the period of one year, 
counting from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty; and those 
who remain in said territories after the expiration of the year, without having de- 
clared their intention of retaining their old nationality, shall be considered to be citi- 
zens of the other contracting party. Every species of property situate in the ceded 
territory shall be inviolably respected, and the actual owners thereof, their heirs and 
those who succeed them may equally acquire said properties, enjoying in respect to 
them guarantees as ample as are enjoyed by citizens of the nation in which they are 
situated. 

Article VI. 

It being the object of both Governments in agreeing to the present treaty, not only 
to put an end to the difficulties which exist between them, but also to terminate and 
avoid those which have originated or which may originate between neighboring 
populations of either country arising out of the uncertainty of the actual boundary 
lines, it is stipulated that within six months after the meeting of the scientific com- 
missioners, mentioned in Article IV, a joint notice shall be sent by their respective 
Governments of the inhabitants, plantations, and farms which will certainly be located 



190 BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

within the boundary line to be established in conlbrmity with Article III. This no- 
tice received, each Governnit'nt is authorized to iiuuiediately issue such orders as 
may be necessary to establish its authority to these points which is to come within 
the territory of the respective nations. 

Akticle VII. 

The present treaty shall be ratified in conformity with the provisions of the politi- 
cal constitution of the respective Eepuldics, and the exchange of ratifications shall 
be made at this capital at the shortest date jiossible. 

In faith of which the present treaty is signed and sealed by the plenipotentiaries. 
Made 171 duplicate at the city of Mexico the twenty-seventh of September, eighteen 
hundred and eighty-two. 

IGNACIO MARISCAL. [l. s.] 

MA?;UEL HERRERA, Jk. [l- s.] 

That the preceding treaty was affirmed by the senate of the United States of Mex- 
ico on the seventeenth day of Oftolier, eighteen hnndreil and eighty-two, and rati- 
fied by me on the fourth of January of the present year; 

That it was eqtially approved by tlie legislative assembly of Guatemala on the 
twenty-fifth day of Decern l)er, eigliteen hundred and eighty-two, and was ratified by 
the President cf Guatemala on the twenty-ninth day of the same month and year; 

And that the ratifications of the ibregoiug treaty were exchanged on this day in the 
city of Mexico; 

Wherefore I order that you print, publish, and circulate it, and give to it its proper 
execution. 

Palace of the National Government, Mexico, first dav of Mav, 1883. 

MAiSfUEL GONZALEZ. 

To the licenciate Ignacio Mariscal, secretary of state for foreign relation?-, and I 
communicate it to you that you may take notice thereof. 
Liberty and constitution. 
Mexico, May 2, 1883. 

MARISCAL. 



No. 72. 
Mr. Davis to 3£r. Morgan. 

No. 406.] Department of State, 

W.isJiiiiiiton, May 28, 1883. 
Sir : Yonr despatch Ko. 614, of the 9th instant, inclosing a c^py and 
translation of the treaty recently simied between Mexico and Guate- 
mala, adjusting their botmdary differences, has been received. Ex- 
pressing the Department's pleasure at this pacific settlement of the dis- 
pute, 

1 am, &c., 

JOHN DAVIS. 



No. 73. 
Mr. Morqan to Mr. Frelinghuyften. 

No. G89.] Legation of the United States, 

Mexico, September 20, 1883. (Received October 6.) 
Sir: As a complement to my dispatch No, 614, 9th May, 1883, with 
which I transmitted to yon a <;opy and translation ot the treaty entered 
into between Mexico and Gaatemala, ou the 27th of Se[)tember, 1882, 



BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 191 

I now inclose a protocol thereto of the 14tli of the present month of 
September, as published in the ''Diario Oficial" of the 18th iustanty 
together with a translation thereof, which has been subscribed with the 
view of carrying out the provisions of the treaty above named. 
I am, &c., 

P. H. MORGAN. 



[luclosurein No. 689. — Tianslation.1 

"DiARio Oficial," 
Tuesday, Sepiember IH, 1883. 

DEPARTMENT FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, SECTION OF AMERICA. 

Protocol to the agreement celebrated between Don Jos^ Fernandez, subsecretary 
in charge of the department for foreign relations of the United Mexican States, and 
Don M^inael Herrera, jnnior, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the 
Repnblic of Guatemala, each representing their respective Governments, to detfrmine 
the drtails relative to the organization and proceedings of the commission whose dnty 
it will be to trace the boundary line agreecl to in the boundary treaty celebrated be- 
tween' the two conutries on the '27th September, 1882. 

It having been stipulated in Article IV of the treaty of the 27th Se])tember, 1882, 
•which settledthe question of boundary between Mexico and Guatemala, that both Gov- 
ernments should, in the shoitest delay, enter into an arrangement by which to determine 
the details relative to the commission, and the labors thereof, which are mentioned in 
that article, the un<lersigned, D. Jos^ Fernandez, under secretary for foreign rela- 
tions in charge of the department thereof, and D. Manuel Herrera, envoy extraordi- 
nary and uiinisterplenipotentiary of Guatemala, representing the Government of that 
Ee[)ublic, have held several conferences, and, after having taken into consideration 
and discussed the projdt presented by the Mexican Government, the counter i^rojet 
presented by Senor Herrera, and the additional counter pro,i^t presented by Selior 
Fernandez, and a third one presented by Senor Herrera, have, after mutual conces- 
sions, agreed upon the following articles : 

Article I. 

The personnel of each of the commissions spoken of in Article IV of the treaty of 
27th September, 1882, shall be composed of one chief engineer in making astronom- 
ical observations, two topographical engineers of the first class, two of the second, 
and two tiist and second assistants. 

If in the course of the operations which have to be made either of the Governments 
considers it convenient to add an additujnal astronomer, it may do so, giving at the 
least one month and a h.alf notice in advance to the other Government. 

Article II. 

The two commissioners shall meet at Union Juarez on the 1st day of November 
nex+. They shall commence their work at the extreme south of the line agreed upon, 
and shall continue their operations in the older specified in the treaty, except in places 
where there is a natural boundary, in which places the points shall be geographically 
fixed. 

Article III. 

The purely astronomical work which will be done near the verticals of the dividino- 
lines, shall be done separately by the astronomers of both countries, when from the 
results obtained there shall be found a difference in latitude or in the azimutal angle 
which shall not exceed one second. The two shall be combined and the result ob- 
tained shall be considered decisive. 

Article IV. 

The tracing of the geodesical lines agreed to in the treaty shall be made conjointly 
by the astrunomers of both countries ; but they may be made separately if it shall be 
so agreed between them. 

Article V. 

For the work purely topographical the entire zone shall be divided in sections, un- 
der the charge alternately of the Mexican and Guatemalan topographers. 



192 * BOUNDARY BETWEEN MEXICO AND GUATEMALA. 

Article VI. 



'S 



The geoilesical lines and parallels of latitude wbich mark the treaty shall be des- 
ignated liy uiununients from ]iarallel 17° 49', indelinitely towards the east. These 
mounmeuts sliall, in general, be of sfone masonry, well cemented, except where the 
cost of material is vei'y great, in which case the foundations shall be of stone masonry, 
and the monuments shall be mado of the best nniterials which are to be jnoduced in 
the neighborhood. They are to be of truncated pyramidical form, surrounded by- 
other small jjyiamids, with a base of one meter on the sides and three meters high 
from the level of the ground. 

Article VII. 

The monuments shall be placed at such distances apart that from one may be seen 
the one which precedes ami follows it. In desert tracts and whenever the following 
of this rule shall make the construction of the jnonniiients very expensive, they may 
be placed at further distances apart. Each of the Repuljlics shall meet and pay for 
the one-half of the monuments. 

Article VIII. 

Whenever the forests or the accidents of the ground make it necessary to open 
roads, such roads shall not exceed six meteis in widlh. Each of the comnnssiouerd 
shall employ and pay an equal number of workmen for performing such work. 

Article IX. 

W^hen running the dividing line maps shall be made in each zone of two kilometers 
at least on each side thereof, describing the accidents and notable points of the coun- 
try and each of the monuments which are erected thereon. 

Article X. 

When the work shall have been completed duplicate maps on a scale of one to one 
hundred thousand shall be made; the chiefs of the commission shall certify to them, 
and, thus signed, deliver them to their respective Governments, accompanied by their 
reports, the origiual of their held-notes, and certihed copies of those of the commis- 
sion of the other Government. 

Article XL 

Eacb Government shall give to its respective commission the instructions necessary 
for the performing of its work. 

Additional Article. 

It is agreed between the subscribers to this protocol, they being authorized thereto, 
that it is the wish of the two executives of the high contracting parties that this 
convention is and shall be held to be definitive, and therefore that it is not necessary 
that it shall I'eceive the approval or subsequent ratiticariou of said executives. 

In faith of which this protocol, in duplicate origiuals, has been signed and sealed, 
at the city of Mexico, on the fourteenth day ot September, eighteen hundred and 
eighty-three. 

JOSfi FERNANDEZ. 
MANUEL HERRERA, Jr. 

This is a copy. Mexico, September 14, 1883. 

JOS£ FERNANDEZ, 

Official Mayor, 

o . 



{ 




